CVE-2025-71201
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: netfs: Fix early read unlock of page with EOF in middle The read result collection for buffered reads seems to run ahead of the completion of subrequests under some circumstances, as can be seen in the following log snippet: 9p_client_res: client 18446612686390831168 response P9_TREAD tag 0 err 0 ... netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[1] DOWN TERM f=192 s=0 5fb2/5fb2 s=5 e=0 ... netfs_collect_folio: R=00001b55 ix=00004 r=4000-5000 t=4000/5fb2 netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00004-00004 read-done netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00004-00004 read-unlock netfs_collect_folio: R=00001b55 ix=00005 r=5000-5fb2 t=5000/5fb2 netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00005-00005 read-done netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00005-00005 read-unlock ... netfs_collect_stream: R=00001b55[0:] cto=5fb2 frn=ffffffff netfs_collect_state: R=00001b55 col=5fb2 cln=6000 n=c netfs_collect_stream: R=00001b55[0:] cto=5fb2 frn=ffffffff netfs_collect_state: R=00001b55 col=5fb2 cln=6000 n=8 ... netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[2] ZERO SUBMT f=000 s=5fb2 0/4e s=0 e=0 netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[2] ZERO TERM f=102 s=5fb2 4e/4e s=5 e=0 The 'cto=5fb2' indicates the collected file pos we've collected results to so far - but we still have 0x4e more bytes to go - so we shouldn't have collected folio ix=00005 yet. The 'ZERO' subreq that clears the tail happens after we unlock the folio, allowing the application to see the uncleared tail through mmap. The problem is that netfs_read_unlock_folios() will unlock a folio in which the amount of read results collected hits EOF position - but the ZERO subreq lies beyond that and so happens after. Fix this by changing the end check to always be the end of the folio and never the end of the file. In the future, I should look at clearing to the end of the folio here rather than adding a ZERO subreq to do this. On the other hand, the ZERO subreq can run in parallel with an async READ subreq. Further, the ZERO subreq may still be necessary to, say, handle extents in a ceph file that don't have any backing store and are thus implicitly all zeros. This can be reproduced by creating a file, the size of which doesn't align to a page boundary, e.g. 24998 (0x5fb2) bytes and then doing something like: xfs_io -c "mmap -r 0 0x6000" -c "madvise -d 0 0x6000" \ -c "mread -v 0 0x6000" /xfstest.test/x The last 0x4e bytes should all be 00, but if the tail hasn't been cleared yet, you may see rubbish there. This can be reproduced with kafs by modifying the kernel to disable the call to netfs_read_subreq_progress() and to stop afs_issue_read() from doing the async call for NETFS_READAHEAD. Reproduction can be made easier by inserting an mdelay(100) in netfs_issue_read() for the ZERO-subreq case. AFS and CIFS are normally unlikely to show this as they dispatch READ ops asynchronously, which allows the ZERO-subreq to finish first. 9P's READ op is completely synchronous, so the ZERO-subreq will always happen after. It isn't seen all the time, though, because the collection may be done in a worker thread.
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 analysisThe code reads past the end (or before the start) of a buffer, returning memory that was never meant to be exposed. Attackers use it to leak secrets like keys or to defeat memory-protection defences. Remediation is validating indices and lengths before every read.
General guidance for the out-of-bounds read class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 6.14, < 6.18.6= 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 · scoped6.18.6
Linux Kernel 6.18.6 or later, or 6.20 or later
- Identify the current running kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Check if the version is >= 6.14 and < 6.18.6, or exactly 6.19
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.18.6 or later, or to version 6.20 or later to avoid version 6.19
- Reboot the system to apply the new kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the patch commit 570ad253a345 is included in the new kernel
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-2025-71201 — 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-2025-71201 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