CVE-2025-39989

CVE-2025-39989 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel with a CVSS 3.x base score of 5.5. It is not currently listed as actively exploited by CISA, and its EPSS exploit-prediction score is low. The underlying weakness is classified as CWE-401.

Key facts

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context Patch series "mm/hwpoison: Fix regressions in memory failure handling", v4. ## 1. What am I trying to do: This patchset resolves two critical regressions related to memory failure handling that have appeared in the upstream kernel since version 5.17, as compared to 5.10 LTS. - copyin case: poison found in user page while kernel copying from user space - instr case: poison found while instruction fetching in user space ## 2. What is the expected outcome and why - For copyin case: Kernel can recover from poison found where kernel is doing get_user() or copy_from_user() if those places get an error return and the kernel return -EFAULT to the process instead of crashing. More specifily, MCE handler checks the fixup handler type to decide whether an in kernel #MC can be recovered. When EX_TYPE_UACCESS is found, the PC jumps to recovery code specified in _ASM_EXTABLE_FAULT() and return a -EFAULT to user space. - For instr case: If a poison found while instruction fetching in user space, full recovery is possible. User process takes #PF, Linux allocates a new page and fills by reading from storage. ## 3. What actually happens and why - For copyin case: kernel panic since v5.17 Commit 4c132d1d844a ("x86/futex: Remove .fixup usage") introduced a new extable fixup type, EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG, and later patches updated the extable fixup type for copy-from-user operations, changing it from EX_TYPE_UACCESS to EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG. It breaks previous EX_TYPE_UACCESS handling when posion found in get_user() or copy_from_user(). - For instr case: user process is killed by a SIGBUS signal due to #CMCI and #MCE race When an uncorrected memory error is consumed there is a race between the CMCI from the memory controller reporting an uncorrected error with a UCNA signature, and the core reporting and SRAR signature machine check when the data is about to be consumed. ### Background: why *UN*corrected errors tied to *C*MCI in Intel platform [1] Prior to Icelake memory controllers reported patrol scrub events that detected a previously unseen uncorrected error in memory by signaling a broadcast machine check with an SRAO (Software Recoverable Action Optional) signature in the machine check bank. This was overkill because it's not an urgent problem that no core is on the verge of consuming that bad data. It's also found that multi SRAO UCE may cause nested MCE interrupts and finally become an IERR. Hence, Intel downgrades the machine check bank signature of patrol scrub from SRAO to UCNA (Uncorrected, No Action required), and signal changed to #CMCI. Just to add to the confusion, Linux does take an action (in uc_decode_notifier()) to try to offline the page despite the UC*NA* signature name. ### Background: why #CMCI and #MCE race when poison is consuming in Intel platform [1] Having decided that CMCI/UCNA is the best action for patrol scrub errors, the memory controller uses it for reads too. But the memory controller is executing asynchronously from the core, and can't tell the difference between a "real" read and a speculative read. So it will do CMCI/UCNA if an error is found in any read. Thus: 1) Core is clever and thinks address A is needed soon, issues a speculative read. 2) Core finds it is going to use address A soon after sending the read request 3) The CMCI from the memory controller is in a race with MCE from the core that will soon try to retire the load from address A. Quite often (because speculation has got better) the CMCI from the memory controller is delivered before the core is committed to the instruction reading address A, so the interrupt is taken, and Linux offlines the page (marking it as poison). ## Why user process is killed for instr case Commit 046545a661af ("mm/hwpoison: fix error page recovered but reported "not ---truncated---

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2025-39989?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context Patch series "mm/hwpoison: Fix regressions in memory failure handling", v4. ## 1. What am I trying to do: This patchset resolves two critical regressions related to memory failure handling that have appeared in the upstream kernel since version 5.17, as compared to 5.10 LTS. - copyin case: poison found in user page while kernel copying from user space - instr case: poison found while instruction fetching in user space ## 2. What is the expected outcome and why - For copyin case: Kernel can recover from poison found where kernel is doing get_user() or copy_from_user() if those places get an error return and the kernel return -EFAULT to the process instead of crashing. More specifily, MCE handler checks the fixup handler type to decide whether an in kernel #MC can be recovered. When EX_TYPE_UACCESS is found, the PC jumps to recovery code specified in _ASM_EXTABLE_FAULT() and return a -EFAULT to user space. - For instr case: If a poison found while instruction fetching in user space, full recovery is possible. User process takes #PF, Linux allocates a new page and fills by reading from storage. ## 3. What actually happens and why - For copyin case: kernel panic since v5.17 Commit 4c132d1d844a ("x86/futex: Remove .fixup usage") introduced a new extable fixup type, EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG, and later patches updated the extable fixup type for copy-from-user operations, changing it from EX_TYPE_UACCESS to EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG. It breaks previous EX_TYPE_UACCESS handling when posion found in get_user() or copy_from_user(). - For instr case: user process is killed by a SIGBUS signal due to #CMCI and #MCE race When an uncorrected memory error is consumed there is a race between the CMCI from the memory controller reporting an uncorrected error with a UCNA signature, and the core reporting and SRAR signature machine check when the data is about to be consumed. ### Background: why *UN*corrected errors tied to *C*MCI in Intel platform [1] Prior to Icelake memory controllers reported patrol scrub events that detected a previously unseen uncorrected error in memory by signaling a broadcast machine check with an SRAO (Software Recoverable Action Optional) signature in the machine check bank. This was overkill because it's not an urgent problem that no core is on the verge of consuming that bad data. It's also found that multi SRAO UCE may cause nested MCE interrupts and finally become an IERR. Hence, Intel downgrades the machine check bank signature of patrol scrub from SRAO to UCNA (Uncorrected, No Action required), and signal changed to #CMCI. Just to add to the confusion, Linux does take an action (in uc_decode_notifier()) to try to offline the page despite the UC*NA* signature name. ### Background: why #CMCI and #MCE race when poison is consuming in Intel platform [1] Having decided that CMCI/UCNA is the best action for patrol scrub errors, the memory controller uses it for reads too. But the memory controller is executing asynchronously from the core, and can't tell the difference between a "real" read and a speculative read. So it will do CMCI/UCNA if an error is found in any read. Thus: 1) Core is clever and thinks address A is needed soon, issues a speculative read. 2) Core finds it is going to use address A soon after sending the read request 3) The CMCI from the memory controller is in a race with MCE from the core that will soon try to retire the load from address A. Quite often (because speculation has got better) the CMCI from the memory controller is delivered before the core is committed to the instruction reading address A, so the interrupt is taken, and Linux offlines the page (marking it as poison). ## Why user process is killed for instr case Commit 046545a661af ("mm/hwpoison: fix error page recovered but reported "not ---truncated---
How severe is CVE-2025-39989?
CVE-2025-39989 has a CVSS 3.x base score of 5.5, rated medium severity. It is exploitable over local access with low attack complexity, requires low privileges and no user interaction. Impact on confidentiality is none, integrity none, and availability high.
Is CVE-2025-39989 being actively exploited?
It is not currently listed in CISA's KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit-prediction score is 0% (10th percentile), an estimate of the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
What products are affected by CVE-2025-39989?
CVE-2025-39989 affects Linux Linux Kernel. See the affected-products list for the exact vulnerable versions.
How do I fix CVE-2025-39989?
Review the linked vendor and NVD advisories for patched versions and mitigations, then upgrade or apply the recommended workaround.
Does CVE-2025-39989 have an EU (EUVD) identifier?
Yes. CVE-2025-39989 is tracked in the ENISA EU Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as EUVD-2025-11814.
When was CVE-2025-39989 published?
CVE-2025-39989 was published on 2025-04-18 and last updated on 2026-06-17.

References

Affected products (1)

More vulnerabilities in Linux Linux Kernel

All CVEs affecting Linux Linux Kernel →

Other CWE-401 (Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime) vulnerabilities

Browse all CWE-401 (Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime) vulnerabilities →