Microsoft security update for CVE-2025-38305 — azl3 kernel 6.6.92.2-2 on Azure Linux 3.0
🔗 CVE IDs covered (1)
📋 Microsoft's advisory
EchelonGraph does not copy Microsoft's advisory page: its FAQ and remediation text are not shown here. Read the advisory on https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-38305. This page also shows what EchelonGraph holds for CVE-2025-38305, with the description from its CVE record, which the CVE Numbering Authority that assigned the CVE wrote: for a CVE Microsoft assigned, often in the words of Microsoft's own advisory.
🎯 Affected products1
- azl3 kernel 6.6.92.2-2 on Azure Linux 3.0
✅ Updates Microsoft lists: 1 update
1 row: one per KB article or update, update type and fixed build. Their details are on Microsoft's advisory.
| KB article | Update | Fixed build |
|---|---|---|
| — | Security Update | 6.6.96.1-1 |
🧭 EchelonGraph on CVE-2025-38305
- EchelonGraph score
- 5.5 MEDIUM
- CISA KEV
- Not listed
- Fix status
- A fix is available — apply it.
Description from the CVE record (CVE.org), as published by its numbering authority
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use() There is no disagreement that we should check both ptp->is_virtual_clock and ptp->n_vclocks to check if the ptp virtual clock is in use. However, when we acquire ptp->n_vclocks_mux to read ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use(), we observe a recursive lock in the call trace starting from n_vclocks_store(). ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.15.0-rc6 #1 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- syz.0.1540/13807 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_vclock_in_use drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h:103 [inline] ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_clock_unregister+0x21/0x250 drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c:415 but task is already holding lock: ffff888030704868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: n_vclocks_store+0xf1/0x6d0 drivers/ptp/ptp_sysfs.c:215 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); *** DEADLOCK *** .... ============================================ The best way to solve this is to remove the logic that checks ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use(). The reason why this is appropriate is that any path that uses ptp->n_vclocks must unconditionally check if ptp->n_vclocks is greater than 0 before unregistering vclocks, and all functions are already written this way. And in the function that uses ptp->n_vclocks, we already get ptp->n_vclocks_mux before unregistering vclocks. Therefore, we need to remove the redundant check for ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use() to prevent recursive locking.
Published by kernel.org, the CVE Numbering Authority that assigned CVE-2025-38305, in its CVE record at CVE.org; reused under the CVE Program's Terms of Use (its licence and MITRE's copyright notice are in our Terms of Service).