CVE Intelligence
Medium

CVE-2025-39915 — net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink

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---

Published Oct 1, 2025 · Updated Oct 19, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: Linux

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.1%
ahead of 1% of scored CVEs · Oct 19, 2026
Affects
Linux
Linux and 1 more
CVSS base
5.5
Medium · 4 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — git.kernel.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — git.kernel.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux, Linux Linux Kernel).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Linux Linux ≥ 5fd0f1a02e750e2db4038dee60edea669ce5aab1 and < 052ac41c379c8b87629808be612a482b2d0ae283≥ 5fd0f1a02e750e2db4038dee60edea669ce5aab1 and < e2a10daba84968f6b5777d150985fd7d6abc9c84version 6.14 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Linux Linux Kernel ≥ 6.14 and < 6.16.8version 6.17-rc1version 6.17-rc2version 6.17-rc3version 6.17-rc4version 6.17-rc5 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

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

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium 1.8 3.6 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium 1.8 3.6 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
5.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-667

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
endpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · linux/linux
    Oct 19, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 19, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 19, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 19, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Affected products added · linux/linux kernel
    Oct 19, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 5.5
    Oct 19, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 19, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 19, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • 2025
  • CVE published
    Oct 1, 2025 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 19, 2026 – Oct 19, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 19, 2026 – Oct 19, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Linux
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-667
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-98868 dm-pcache: reject a kset that overruns its segment 1d
  • CVE-2026-98866 sched/cache: Introduce task_struct->sched_cache_grp to fix UAF 1d
  • CVE-2026-98867 dm-pcache: bound the logical key offset from persistent memory 1d
  • CVE-2026-98865 sched_ext: Don't run ops.dequeue() with a DSQ lock held 1d
  • CVE-2026-98864 sched_ext: Wait for SCX_OPSS_DISPATCHING before reenqueueing a task 1d
  • CVE-2026-98863 KVM: x86: Re-pend GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES if getting said pages fails 1d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-39915 is "net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink", rated Medium. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.10% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.