CVE-2025-71182
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: can: j1939: make j1939_session_activate() fail if device is no longer registered syzbot is still reporting unregister_netdevice: waiting for vcan0 to become free. Usage count = 2 even after commit 93a27b5891b8 ("can: j1939: add missing calls in NETDEV_UNREGISTER notification handler") was added. A debug printk() patch found that j1939_session_activate() can succeed even after j1939_cancel_active_session() from j1939_netdev_notify(NETDEV_UNREGISTER) has completed. Since j1939_cancel_active_session() is processed with the session list lock held, checking ndev->reg_state in j1939_session_activate() with the session list lock held can reliably close the race window.
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>= 5.4.1, < 5.10.248>= 5.11, < 5.15.198>= 5.16, < 6.1.161>= 6.2, < 6.6.121>= 6.7, < 6.12.66>= 6.13, < 6.18.6= 5.4= 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 · scoped5.10.2485.15.1986.1.161
Upgrade to kernel >= 5.10.248 (for 5.4.1-5.10.x), >= 5.15.198 (for 5.11-5.15.x), >= 6.1.161 (for 5.16-6.1.x), or >= 6.6.121 (for 6.2+)
- 1. Identify the currently running kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Determine which version branch you are on (e.g., 5.10.x, 5.15.x, 6.1.x, 6.6.x) from the affected ranges
- 3. Upgrade the Linux kernel to a version that includes the fix: for 5.4.1-5.10.x upgrade to >= 5.10.248, for 5.11-5.15.x upgrade to >= 5.15.198, for 5.16-6.1.x upgrade to >= 6.1.161, or for 6.2+ upgrade to >= 6.6.121
- 4. For distribution-specific systems, use the distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt-get dist-upgrade`, `yum update`, or `dnf upgrade`) to install the updated kernel package
- 5. Reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- 6. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version with `uname -r` and confirming the running version is >= the fixed version for your branch
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-2025-71182 — 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-2025-71182 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