cveboard RSS feed

CVE-2025-39726

CVE.org · Published

Historical CVEsJSONAI instructions

Record status
Published
Identifier year (not publication year)
2025
Source publication
Source updated
Imported by cveboard
Source snapshot
cve_2026-10-24_midnight_baseline ·

Plain text

CNA source text (English)

s390/ism: fix concurrency management in ism_cmd()

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.

Scoped product and version facts

Fix information unknown; no fixed version is derived here. Missing information does not prove that no fix exists.

Exploitation unknown; this catalogue does not assess exploitation.

Linux

Vendor
Linux
Product
Linux
Platforms
Unknown
Default status
unaffected
Linux · Scoped product and version facts
Version (version)Status (status)Version scheme (versionType)Exclusive end (lessThan)Inclusive end (lessThanOrEqual)Status changes (at → status)
684b89bc39ce4f204b1a2b180f39f2eb36a6b695affectedgitfaf44487dfc80817f178dc8de7a0b73f960d019bUnavailableNone listed
684b89bc39ce4f204b1a2b180f39f2eb36a6b695affectedgit1194ad0d44d66b273a02a3a22882dc863a68d764UnavailableNone listed
684b89bc39ce4f204b1a2b180f39f2eb36a6b695affectedgitfafaa4982bedb5532f5952000f714a3e63023f40UnavailableNone listed
684b89bc39ce4f204b1a2b180f39f2eb36a6b695affectedgit897e8601b9cff1d054cdd53047f568b0e1995726UnavailableNone listed

Linux

Vendor
Linux
Product
Linux
Platforms
Unknown
Default status
affected
Linux · Scoped product and version facts
Version (version)Status (status)Version scheme (versionType)Exclusive end (lessThan)Inclusive end (lessThanOrEqual)Status changes (at → status)
4.19affectedUnavailableUnavailableUnavailableNone listed
0unaffectedsemver4.19UnavailableNone listed
6.6.101unaffectedsemverUnavailable6.6.*None listed
6.12.41unaffectedsemverUnavailable6.12.*None listed
6.15.9unaffectedsemverUnavailable6.15.*None listed
6.16unaffectedoriginal_commit_for_fixUnavailable*None listed