CVE-2025-39905

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

net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->phydev writes with resolver

Currently phylink_resolve() protects itself against concurrent phylink_bringup_phy() or phylink_disconnect_phy() calls which modify pl->phydev by relying on pl->state_mutex.

The problem is that in phylink_resolve(), pl->state_mutex is in a lock inversion state with pl->phydev->lock. So pl->phydev->lock needs to be acquired prior to pl->state_mutex. But that requires dereferencing pl->phydev in the first place, and without pl->state_mutex, that is racy.

Hence the reason for the extra lock. Currently it is redundant, but it will serve a functional purpose once mutex_lock(&phy->lock) will be moved outside of the mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex) section.

Another alternative considered would have been to let phylink_resolve() acquire the rtnl_mutex, which is also held when phylink_bringup_phy() and phylink_disconnect_phy() are called. But since phylink_disconnect_phy() runs under rtnl_lock(), it would deadlock with phylink_resolve() when calling flush_work(&pl->resolve). Additionally, it would have been undesirable because it would have unnecessarily blocked many other call paths as well in the entire kernel, so the smaller-scoped lock was preferred.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

• Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
• Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/26.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0ba5b2f2c381dbec9ed9e4ab3ae5d3e667de0dc3
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56fe63b05ec84ae6674269d78397cec43a7a295a