Bug 2400611 (CVE-2025-39905) - CVE-2025-39905 kernel: net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->phydev writes with resolver
Summary: CVE-2025-39905 kernel: net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2025-39905
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-10-01 08:02 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-10-02 11:16 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-10-01 08:02:30 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->phydev writes with resolver

Currently phylink_resolve() protects itself against concurrent
phylink_bringup_phy() or phylink_disconnect_phy() calls which modify
pl->phydev by relying on pl->state_mutex.

The problem is that in phylink_resolve(), pl->state_mutex is in a lock
inversion state with pl->phydev->lock. So pl->phydev->lock needs to be
acquired prior to pl->state_mutex. But that requires dereferencing
pl->phydev in the first place, and without pl->state_mutex, that is
racy.

Hence the reason for the extra lock. Currently it is redundant, but it
will serve a functional purpose once mutex_lock(&phy->lock) will be
moved outside of the mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex) section.

Another alternative considered would have been to let phylink_resolve()
acquire the rtnl_mutex, which is also held when phylink_bringup_phy()
and phylink_disconnect_phy() are called. But since phylink_disconnect_phy()
runs under rtnl_lock(), it would deadlock with phylink_resolve() when
calling flush_work(&pl->resolve). Additionally, it would have been
undesirable because it would have unnecessarily blocked many other call
paths as well in the entire kernel, so the smaller-scoped lock was
preferred.


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