Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

Moderate severity Unreviewed Published Sep 5, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Nov 25, 2025

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

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

s390/ism: fix concurrency management in ism_cmd()

The s390x ISM device data sheet clearly states that only one
request-response sequence is allowable per ISM function at any point in
time. Unfortunately as of today the s390/ism driver in Linux does not
honor that requirement. This patch aims to rectify that.

This problem was discovered based on Aliaksei's bug report which states
that for certain workloads the ISM functions end up entering error state
(with PEC 2 as seen from the logs) after a while and as a consequence
connections handled by the respective function break, and for future
connection requests the ISM device is not considered -- given it is in a
dysfunctional state. During further debugging PEC 3A was observed as
well.

A kernel message like
[ 1211.244319] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: Event 0x2 reports an error for PCI function 0x61a
is a reliable indicator of the stated function entering error state
with PEC 2. Let me also point out that a kernel message like
[ 1211.244325] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: The ism driver bound to the device does not support error recovery
is a reliable indicator that the ISM function won't be auto-recovered
because the ISM driver currently lacks support for it.

On a technical level, without this synchronization, commands (inputs to
the FW) may be partially or fully overwritten (corrupted) by another CPU
trying to issue commands on the same function. There is hard evidence that
this can lead to DMB token values being used as DMB IOVAs, leading to
PEC 2 PCI events indicating invalid DMA. But this is only one of the
failure modes imaginable. In theory even completely losing one command
and executing another one twice and then trying to interpret the outputs
as if the command we intended to execute was actually executed and not
the other one is also possible. Frankly, I don't feel confident about
providing an exhaustive list of possible consequences.

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 5, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 5, 2025
Last updated Nov 25, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

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

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(2nd percentile)

Weaknesses

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

The product contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence 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 that is operating concurrently. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-39726

GHSA ID

GHSA-6vq8-h5mr-8xhr

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.