# CVE-2025-22072: spufs: fix gang directory lifetimes

> A use-after-free vulnerability in the Linux kernel's spufs gang directory handling allows local attackers to potentially execute code or escalate privileges.

- **Severity:** High 7.8 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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:** 16 Apr 2025
- **Updated:** 5 Aug 2026
- **Also known as:** BELL-CVE-2025-22072, DEBIAN-CVE-2025-22072, GHSA-v6rx-qqxh-7pj6, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-11-CVE-2025-22072, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2204-CVE-2025-22072, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2404-CVE-2025-22072, UBUNTU-CVE-2025-22072

## What is CVE-2025-22072?

CVE-2025-22072 is a high-severity use after free vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 16 Apr 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:

spufs: fix gang directory lifetimes

prior to "[POWERPC] spufs: Fix gang destroy leaks" we used to have
a problem with gang lifetimes - creation of a gang returns opened
gang directory, which normally gets removed when that gets closed,
but if somebody has created a context belonging to that gang and
kept it alive until the gang got closed, removal failed and we
ended up with a leak.

Unfortunately, it had been fixed the wrong way.  Dentry of gang
directory was no longer pinned, and rmdir on close was gone.
One problem was that failure of open kept calling simple_rmdir()
as cleanup, which meant an unbalanced dput().  Another bug was
in the success case - gang creation incremented link count on
root directory, but that was no longer undone when gang got
destroyed.

Fix consists of
	* reverting the commit in question
	* adding a counter to gang, protected by ->i_rwsem
of gang directory inode.
	* having it set to 1 at creation time, dropped
in both spufs_dir_close() and spufs_gang_close() and bumped
in spufs_create_context(), provided that it's not 0.
	* using simple_recursive_removal() to take the gang
directory out when counter reaches zero.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-22072?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2025-22072?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2025-22072 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-22072 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-2025-22072 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2025-22072 is a high-severity use after free vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 16 Apr 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-2025-22072 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-2025-22072/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-22072/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22072
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22072
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-22072

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-22072/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.