Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

Moderate severity Unreviewed Published Oct 1, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Dec 12, 2025

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink

Problem description

Lockdep reports a possible circular locking dependency (AB/BA) between
&pl->state_mutex and &phy->lock, as follows.

phylink_resolve() // acquires &pl->state_mutex
-> phylink_major_config()
-> phy_config_inband() // acquires &pl->phydev->lock

whereas all the other call sites where &pl->state_mutex and
&pl->phydev->lock have the locking scheme reversed. Everywhere else,
&pl->phydev->lock is acquired at the top level, and &pl->state_mutex at
the lower level. A clear example is phylink_bringup_phy().

The outlier is the newly introduced phy_config_inband() and the existing
lock order is the correct one. To understand why it cannot be the other
way around, it is sufficient to consider phylink_phy_change(), phylink's
callback from the PHY device's phy->phy_link_change() virtual method,
invoked by the PHY state machine.

phy_link_up() and phy_link_down(), the (indirect) callers of
phylink_phy_change(), are called with &phydev->lock acquired.
Then phylink_phy_change() acquires its own &pl->state_mutex, to
serialize changes made to its pl->phy_state and pl->link_config.
So all other instances of &pl->state_mutex and &phydev->lock must be
consistent with this order.

Problem impact

I think the kernel runs a serious deadlock risk if an existing
phylink_resolve() thread, which results in a phy_config_inband() call,
is concurrent with a phy_link_up() or phy_link_down() call, which will
deadlock on &pl->state_mutex in phylink_phy_change(). Practically
speaking, the impact may be limited by the slow speed of the medium
auto-negotiation protocol, which makes it unlikely for the current state
to still be unresolved when a new one is detected, but I think the
problem is there. Nonetheless, the problem was discovered using lockdep.

Proposed solution

Practically speaking, the phy_config_inband() requirement of having
phydev->lock acquired must transfer to the caller (phylink is the only
caller). There, it must bubble up until immediately before
&pl->state_mutex is acquired, for the cases where that takes place.

Solution details, considerations, notes

This is the phy_config_inband() call graph:

                      sfp_upstream_ops :: connect_phy()
                      |
                      v
                      phylink_sfp_connect_phy()
                      |
                      v
                      phylink_sfp_config_phy()
                      |
                      |   sfp_upstream_ops :: module_insert()
                      |   |
                      |   v
                      |   phylink_sfp_module_insert()
                      |   |
                      |   |   sfp_upstream_ops :: module_start()
                      |   |   |
                      |   |   v
                      |   |   phylink_sfp_module_start()
                      |   |   |
                      |   v   v
                      |   phylink_sfp_config_optical()

phylink_start() | |
| phylink_resume() v v
| | phylink_sfp_set_config()
| | |
v v v
phylink_mac_initial_config()
| phylink_resolve()
| | phylink_ethtool_ksettings_set()
v v v
phylink_major_config()
|
v
phy_config_inband()

phylink_major_config() caller #1, phylink_mac_initial_config(), does not
acquire &pl->state_mutex nor do its callers. It must acquire
&pl->phydev->lock prior to calling phylink_major_config().

phylink_major_config() caller #2, phylink_resolve() acquires
&pl->state_mutex, thus also needs to acquire &pl->phydev->lock.

phylink_major_config() caller #3, phylink_ethtool_ksettings_set(), is
completely uninteresting, because it only call
---truncated---

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 1, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 1, 2025
Last updated Dec 12, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Locking

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-39915

GHSA ID

GHSA-m8cc-c87r-9qr2

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.