VulnerabilityPublished 16 Apr 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-22120: Linux kernel · ext4: goto right label 'out_mmap_sem' in ext4_setattr()

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 23:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Apr 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-9vh4-w78f-qwqw

What to do

AI-suggested

The vulnerability has been resolved in the Linux kernel. Until patched, affected systems may experience hung tasks when the error condition is triggered. No other mitigation or workaround is specified.

Description

CVE-2025-22120 is a medium severity vulnerability in the Linux kernel's ext4 filesystem code. It occurs in the ext4_setattr() function where an error path does not properly unlock a mapping invalidate lock, leading to a hung task condition. This can cause processes to block indefinitely, impacting system availability. The issue arises if ext4_inode_attach_jinode() fails, preventing filemap_invalidate_unlock() from being called. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity but results in denial of service due to task hangs.

Impact

The vulnerability causes denial of service by hanging tasks that interact with the ext4 filesystem under certain failure conditions. It does not impact confidentiality or integrity. The denial of service manifests as blocked processes that cannot proceed due to unreleased locks in the filesystem code, potentially affecting system stability and availability.

Summary

This vulnerability in the Linux kernel ext4 filesystem involves incorrect error handling in ext4_setattr(). Specifically, if ext4_inode_attach_jinode() fails, the code jumps to the wrong label ('out_mmap_sem'), skipping the call to filemap_invalidate_unlock() which is necessary to release the mapping->invalidate_lock. As a result, tasks attempting to access the filesystem can become hung, as demonstrated by the fsstress test blocking for over 122 seconds. The issue leads to denial of service by causing hung tasks but does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…