Vulnerability Monitor

The vendors, products, and vulnerabilities you care about

CVE-2025-39735


In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jfs: fix slab-out-of-bounds read in ea_get() During the "size_check" label in ea_get(), the code checks if the extended attribute list (xattr) size matches ea_size. If not, it logs "ea_get: invalid extended attribute" and calls print_hex_dump(). Here, EALIST_SIZE(ea_buf->xattr) returns 4110417968, which exceeds INT_MAX (2,147,483,647). Then ea_size is clamped: int size = clamp_t(int, ea_size, 0, EALIST_SIZE(ea_buf->xattr)); Although clamp_t aims to bound ea_size between 0 and 4110417968, the upper limit is treated as an int, causing an overflow above 2^31 - 1. This leads "size" to wrap around and become negative (-184549328). The "size" is then passed to print_hex_dump() (called "len" in print_hex_dump()), it is passed as type size_t (an unsigned type), this is then stored inside a variable called "int remaining", which is then assigned to "int linelen" which is then passed to hex_dump_to_buffer(). In print_hex_dump() the for loop, iterates through 0 to len-1, where len is 18446744073525002176, calling hex_dump_to_buffer() on each iteration: for (i = 0; i < len; i += rowsize) { linelen = min(remaining, rowsize); remaining -= rowsize; hex_dump_to_buffer(ptr + i, linelen, rowsize, groupsize, linebuf, sizeof(linebuf), ascii); ... } The expected stopping condition (i < len) is effectively broken since len is corrupted and very large. This eventually leads to the "ptr+i" being passed to hex_dump_to_buffer() to get closer to the end of the actual bounds of "ptr", eventually an out of bounds access is done in hex_dump_to_buffer() in the following for loop: for (j = 0; j < len; j++) { if (linebuflen < lx + 2) goto overflow2; ch = ptr[j]; ... } To fix this we should validate "EALIST_SIZE(ea_buf->xattr)" before it is utilised.


Security Impact Summary

This vulnerability carries a HIGH severity rating with a CVSS v3.1 score of 7.1, requiring local system access to exploit with relatively low complexity without requiring user interaction requiring only low-level privileges . The vulnerability impacts confidentiality (data exposure), and availability (service disruption) for affected systems. Impacting 1 product from linux organizations running these solutions should prioritize assessment and patching.

Historical Context

Reported in 2025, this vulnerability emerged during an era marked by increased sophistication in supply chain attacks, cloud infrastructure vulnerabilities, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) security challenges. Security practices during this period emphasized zero-trust architectures, container security, and API protection.


Published

2025-04-18T07:15:44.150

Last Modified

2025-11-03T20:18:47.320

Status

Modified

Source

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

Severity

CVSSv3.1: 7.1 (HIGH)

Weaknesses
  • Type: Primary
    CWE-125
  • Type: Secondary
    CWE-125

Affected Vendors & Products
Type Vendor Product Version/Range Vulnerable?
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 4.20 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 5.4.292 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 5.10.236 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 5.15.180 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.1.134 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.6.87 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.12 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.12.23 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.13.11 Yes
Operating System linux linux_kernel < 6.14.2 Yes

References

How SecUtils Interprets This CVE

SecUtils normalizes and enriches National Vulnerability Database (NVD) records by standardizing vendor and product identifiers, aggregating vulnerability metadata from both NVD and MITRE sources, and providing structured context for security teams. For linux's affected products, we extract Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) data, Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) classifications, CVSS severity metrics, and reference data to enable rapid vulnerability prioritization and asset correlation. This record contains no exploit code, proof-of-concept instructions, or attack methodologies—only defensive intelligence necessary for patch management, risk assessment, and security operations.