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

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/[email protected]/ 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.

Published: 2025-05-09 Last update: 2025-11-12 Assigner: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

Conclusion & alert: CVE-2025-37865 is rated Low Risk (26.7/100): CVSS Medium severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.22%). Mandatory action: Monitor for updates and reassess as exploit intelligence or EPSS changes.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2025-37865

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-06-15 0.07% 0.22% +0.16%
2 2026-03-05 0.03% 0.07% +0.04%
3 2025-11-13 0.03%

Full EPSS history (5 records total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2025-37865

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
5.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:L)
They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:L)
A normal user session is enough; they don’t have to be admin.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N)
Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
1.8 3.6 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2025-37865

OS Trackers for CVE-2025-37865

vendor priority summary link
debian unimportant CVE-2025-37865 unimportant priority: Debian including 2 source packages (linux, linux-6.1), 6 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): resolved 6. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2025-37865
redhat medium https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-37865
suse medium CVE-2025-37865 severity moderate: SUSE including 421 source package names (15.7.20.5.1:kernel-default-6.4.0-150700.53.6.1, 2.1.3-7.43:kernel-rt-6.4.0-33.1, …), 821 product×package rows across 153 product lines (Container suse/hpc/warewulf4-x86_64/sle-hpc-node, Container suse/sl-micro/6.0/rt-os-container, … (153 product lines)): Fixed 434, Known Affected 231, Known Not Affected 156. https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-37865/
ubuntu medium CVE-2025-37865 medium priority: Ubuntu including 158 source packages (linux, linux-allwinner-5.19, …), 1551 status rows across 10 suites (bionic, focal, jammy, noble, oracular, plucky, questing, trusty, upstream, xenial): DNE 1145, ignored 164, released 130, not-affected 107, needed 2, needs-triage 2, pending 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-37865

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2025-37865

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
linux linux_kernel >= 5.18, < 6.1.135 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel >= 6.2, < 6.6.88 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel >= 6.7, < 6.12.25 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel >= 6.13, < 6.14.4 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel 6.15 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.15:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel 6.15 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.15:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*
debian debian_linux 11.0 cpe:2.3:o:debian:debian_linux:11.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2025-37865

cvelogic Threat Intelligence