CVE-2025-40350
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: RX, Fix generating skb from non-linear xdp_buff for striding RQ XDP programs can change the layout of an xdp_buff through bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() and bpf_xdp_adjust_head(). Therefore, the driver cannot assume the size of the linear data area nor fragments. Fix the bug in mlx5 by generating skb according to xdp_buff after XDP programs run. Currently, when handling multi-buf XDP, the mlx5 driver assumes the layout of an xdp_buff to be unchanged. That is, the linear data area continues to be empty and fragments remain the same. This may cause the driver to generate erroneous skb or triggering a kernel warning. When an XDP program added linear data through bpf_xdp_adjust_head(), the linear data will be ignored as mlx5e_build_linear_skb() builds an skb without linear data and then pull data from fragments to fill the linear data area. When an XDP program has shrunk the non-linear data through bpf_xdp_adjust_tail(), the delta passed to __pskb_pull_tail() may exceed the actual nonlinear data size and trigger the BUG_ON in it. To fix the issue, first record the original number of fragments. If the number of fragments changes after the XDP program runs, rewind the end fragment pointer by the difference and recalculate the truesize. Then, build the skb with the linear data area matching the xdp_buff. Finally, only pull data in if there is non-linear data and fill the linear part up to 256 bytes.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $2,300. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-40350 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-40350 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data