# CVE-2025-21674: net/mlx5e: Fix inversion dependency warning while enabling IPsec tunnel > A locking inversion in the Linux kernel mlx5 driver causes a kernel panic when enabling IPsec tunnel offload, leading to denial of service. - **Severity:** Medium 5.5 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Any signed-in user - **Attackable:** Local or same network only - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** Yes - **Published:** 31 Jan 2025 - **Updated:** 11 May 2026 - **Also known as:** AZL-56399, BELL-CVE-2025-21674, DEBIAN-CVE-2025-21674, GHSA-qfqw-8w5m-fmv4, UBUNTU-CVE-2025-21674 ## What is CVE-2025-21674? CVE-2025-21674 is a medium-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 31 Jan 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. ### Official description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix inversion dependency warning while enabling IPsec tunnel Attempt to enable IPsec packet offload in tunnel mode in debug kernel generates the following kernel panic, which is happening due to two issues: 1. In SA add section, the should be _bh() variant when marking SA mode. 2. There is not needed flush_workqueue in SA delete routine. It is not needed as at this stage as it is removed from SADB and the running work will be canceled later in SA free. ===================================================== WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected 6.12.0+ #4 Not tainted ----------------------------------------------------- charon/1337 [HC0[0]:SC0[4]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire: ffff88810f365020 (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_xfrm_del_state+0xca/0x1e0 [mlx5_core] and this task is already holding: ffff88813e0f0d48 (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3}, at: xfrm_state_delete+0x16/0x30 which would create a new lock dependency: (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} -> (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3} but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock: (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_timer_handler+0x91/0xd70 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1dd/0xa60 hrtimer_run_softirq+0x146/0x2e0 handle_softirqs+0x266/0x860 irq_exit_rcu+0x115/0x1a0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x90 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 default_idle+0x13/0x20 default_idle_call+0x67/0xa0 do_idle+0x2da/0x320 cpu_startup_entry+0x50/0x60 start_secondary+0x213/0x2a0 common_startup_64+0x129/0x138 to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3} ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at: ... lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 xa_set_mark+0x70/0x110 mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0xe48/0x2290 [mlx5_core] xfrm_dev_state_add+0x3bb/0xd70 xfrm_add_sa+0x2451/0x4a90 xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x493/0x880 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12e/0x380 xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x6d/0x90 netlink_unicast+0x42f/0x740 netlink_sendmsg+0x745/0xbe0 __sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1fe/0x2c0 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 other info that might help us debug this: Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&xa->xa_lock#24); local_irq_disable(); lock(&x->lock); lock(&xa->xa_lock#24); lock(&x->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by charon/1337: #0: ffffffff87f8f858 (&net->xfrm.xfrm_cfg_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x5e/0x90 #1: ffff88813e0f0d48 (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3}, at: xfrm_state_delete+0x16/0x30 the dependencies between SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock and the holding lock: -> (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} ops: 29 { HARDIRQ-ON-W at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_alloc_spi+0xc0/0xe60 xfrm_alloc_userspi+0x5f6/0xbc0 xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x493/0x880 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12e/0x380 xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x6d/0x90 netlink_unicast+0x42f/0x740 netlink_sendmsg+0x745/0xbe0 __sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1fe/0x2c0 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_timer_handler+0x91/0xd70 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1dd/0xa60 ---truncated--- Weakness: CWE-667 (Improper Locking) ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-21674? It affects 1 product. Products: Linux kernel. ## How do I fix CVE-2025-21674? Apply the vendor's patch. ## Is CVE-2025-21674 being exploited? There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-21674 in the wild and no public exploit code. ## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel - [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild) ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2025-21674 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2025-21674 is a medium-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 31 Jan 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-21674 in the wild and no public exploit code. Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page. Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-21674/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-21674/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-21674 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21674 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-21674 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-21674/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.