CVE-2025-71142
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: cpuset: fix warning when disabling remote partition A warning was triggered as follows: WARNING: kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1651 at remote_partition_disable+0xf7/0x110 RIP: 0010:remote_partition_disable+0xf7/0x110 RSP: 0018:ffffc90001947d88 EFLAGS: 00000206 RAX: 0000000000007fff RBX: ffff888103b6e000 RCX: 0000000000006f40 RDX: 0000000000006f00 RSI: ffffc90001947da8 RDI: ffff888103b6e000 RBP: ffff888103b6e000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffff88810b2e2728 R12: ffffc90001947da8 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffc90001947da8 R15: ffff8881081f1c00 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f55c8bbe0b2 CR3: 000000010b14c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <TASK> update_prstate+0x2d3/0x580 cpuset_partition_write+0x94/0xf0 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x147/0x200 vfs_write+0x35d/0x500 ksys_write+0x66/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x390 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 RIP: 0033:0x7f55c8cd4887 Reproduction steps (on a 16-CPU machine): # cd /sys/fs/cgroup/ # mkdir A1 # echo +cpuset > A1/cgroup.subtree_control # echo "0-14" > A1/cpuset.cpus.exclusive # mkdir A1/A2 # echo "0-14" > A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.exclusive # echo "root" > A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.partition # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu15/online # echo member > A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.partition When CPU 15 is offlined, subpartitions_cpus gets cleared because no CPUs remain available for the top_cpuset, forcing partitions to share CPUs with the top_cpuset. In this scenario, disabling the remote partition triggers a warning stating that effective_xcpus is not a subset of subpartitions_cpus. Partitions should be invalidated in this case to inform users that the partition is now invalid(cpus are shared with top_cpuset). To fix this issue: 1. Only emit the warning only if subpartitions_cpus is not empty and the effective_xcpus is not a subset of subpartitions_cpus. 2. During the CPU hotplug process, invalidate partitions if subpartitions_cpus is empty.
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.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 6.15.1, < 6.18.4= 6.15= 6.19CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
dbcve · scoped6.18.4
6.18.4 or later / 6.19.x
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.18.4 or later, or any 6.19.x release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-71142 — 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-2025-71142 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