Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2025-37865: Linux kernel · net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium · fixed in 6.8.0-1046.49~22.04.1 : update Linux kernel when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
5.5Medium
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.
EPSS
0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch
Available – fixed in 6.8.0-1046.49~22.04.1, 6.8.0-1051.57~22.04.1, 6.8.0-1046.53~22.04.1 +27
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 9 May 2025

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponised: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq 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 26 Oct 2026.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

ProductAffectedFixed in
Ubuntu 25.10linux-azure-fdepkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-fde?arch=source&distro=questingOther threatsAffected
  • 6.17.0-1003.3 – 6.17.0-1017.17
10 affected builds
Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinuxpkg:deb/ubuntu/linux?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-100.100
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-100.100
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-awspkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-aws?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1046.49
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1046.49
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azurepkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1046.52
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1046.52
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azure-6.11pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-6.11?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • 6.11.0-1008.8~24.04.1 – 6.11.0-1018.18~24.04.1
7 affected builds
Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azure-fdepkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-fde?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1046.53
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1046.53

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN from a user port fails with -ENOENT: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID, but fails and returns -ENOENT as such. But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put() not exit early: if (!sid) return 0; And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get(). But some chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case, later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is just residual stack memory. Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI, so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the coincidence that a test for vlan.sid == 0 already exists and leads to the same (correct) behavior. Another option which would be sufficient would be to add a test for mv88e6xxx_has_stu() inside mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), symmetric to the one which already exists in mv88e6xxx_mst_get(). But that placement means the caller will have to dereference vlan.sid, which means it will access uninitialized memory, which is not nice even if it ignores it later. So we end up making both modifications, in order to not rely just on the sid == 0 coincidence, but also to avoid having uninitialized structure fields which might get temporarily accessed.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…