CVE-2025-37914
Description
A use-after-free vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel’s netem qdisc. This issue occurs when it incorrectly manages duplicated packets in classful parent qdiscs. This leads to a corrupted internal state and eventual dereferencing of freed memory, resulting in unpredictable behavior, system instability, or a crash.
Statement
A logic flaw in the ETS (Enhanced Transmission Selection) scheduler in the Linux kernel’s net/sched subsystem allows the same class to be added twice to the active list if the enqueue callback is reentered, for example due to a netem child.
Although no UAF occurs, this leads to list corruption, which may result in kernel memory corruption, undefined behavior, or system crashes.
Triggering this bug requires a crafted qdisc hierarchy and interaction between ETS and netem.
An attacker could create memory corruption via list pointers, but turning this into privilege escalation would require further primitives or info leaks.
Likely exploitable for denial-of-service (DoS) in most practical scenarios.
Mitigation
If ETS (Enhanced Transmission Selection) scheduler not being used, then the mitigation would be to disabled related Kernel module.
To mitigate this issue, prevent module sch_ets from being loaded. Please see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/41278 for how to blacklist a kernel module to prevent it from loading automatically.
sch_ets
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7 | 7.8 | 7.8 |
| Attack Vector | Local | Local | Local |
| Attack Complexity | High | Low | Low |
| Privileges Required | Low | Low | Low |
| User Interaction | None | None | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | High | High | High |
| Integrity Impact | High | High | High |
| Availability Impact | High | High | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control
Technical Impact: Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; Bypass Protection Mechanism
Clearly, write-what-where conditions can be used to write data to areas of memory outside the scope of a policy. Also, they almost invariably can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. If the attacker can overwrite a pointer's worth of memory (usually 32 or 64 bits), they can redirect a function pointer to their own malicious code. Even when the attacker can only modify a single byte arbitrary code execution can be possible. Sometimes this is because the same problem can be exploited repeatedly to the same effect. Other times it is because the attacker can overwrite security-critical application-specific data -- such as a flag indicating whether the user is an administrator.
Integrity,Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; Modify Memory
Many memory accesses can lead to program termination, such as when writing to addresses that are invalid for the current process.
Access Control,Other
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism; Other
When the consequence is arbitrary code execution, this can often be used to subvert any other security service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
