CVE-2025-38523: cifs: Fix the smbd_response slab to allow usercopy

Severity: medium (CVSS 5.5 v3.1)
Exploited in the wild: not listed in CISA KEV
EPSS: 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days
Public exploit or detection template: none known
Published: 2025-08-16 · updated 2026-07-30
Weakness: CWE-1188

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cifs: Fix the smbd_response slab to allow usercopy The handling of received data in the smbdirect client code involves using copy_to_iter() to copy data from the smbd_reponse struct's packet trailer to a folioq buffer provided by netfslib that encapsulates a chunk of pagecache. If, however, CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY=y, this will result in the checks then performed in copy_to_iter() oopsing with something like the following: CIFS: Attempting to mount //172.31.9.1/test CIFS: VFS: RDMA transport established usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object 'smbd_response_0000000091e24ea1' (offset 81, size 63)! ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:102! ... RIP: 0010:usercopy_abort+0x6c/0x80 ... Call Trace: <TASK> __check_heap_object+0xe3/0x120 __check_object_size+0x4dc/0x6d0 smbd_recv+0x77f/0xfe0 [cifs] cifs_readv_from_socket+0x276/0x8f0 [cifs] cifs_read_from_socket+0xcd/0x120 [cifs] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x7e9/0x2d50 [cifs] kthread+0x396/0x830 ret_from_fork+0x2b8/0x3b0 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 The problem is that the smbd_response slab's packet field isn't marked as being permitted for usercopy. Fix this by passing parameters to kmem_slab_create() to indicate that copy_to_iter() is permitted from the packet region of the smbd_response slab objects, less the header space.

Affected products

Linux kernel: from 6.12 before 6.12.36; from 6.13 before 6.15.8; 6.16-rc1, 6.16-rc2, 6.16-rc3 — fixed in 6.12.36, 6.15.8

How to fix

Upgrade to a fixed version: Linux kernel 6.12.36, 6.15.8. Check the vendor advisory for mitigations.

References

Get alerted when CVE-2025-38523 or the next vulnerability affects your stack