Bug 2387670 (CVE-2025-38499) - CVE-2025-38499 kernel: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns
Summary: CVE-2025-38499 kernel: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2025-38499
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-08-11 17:01 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-12-22 00:30 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:23241 0 None None None 2025-12-17 11:25:53 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:23250 0 None None None 2025-12-17 05:24:29 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:23279 0 None None None 2025-12-17 05:17:25 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:23730 0 None None None 2025-12-22 00:30:41 UTC

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-08-11 17:01:28 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns

What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something
hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo.  "Wouldn't be able to undo"
may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from
lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to.

clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter.

There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various
userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve
different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually,
but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2025-12-17 05:17:24 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10

Via RHSA-2025:23279 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23279

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2025-12-17 05:24:28 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support

Via RHSA-2025:23250 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23250

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2025-12-17 11:25:52 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9

Via RHSA-2025:23241 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23241

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2025-12-22 00:30:40 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9

Via RHSA-2025:23730 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23730


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.