Skip to content

CVE-2025-21807

Is CVE-2025-21807 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-667
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: block: fix queue freeze vs limits lock order in sysfs store methods queue_attr_store() always freezes a device queue before calling the attribute store operation. For attributes that control queue limits, the store operation will also lock the queue limits with a call to queue_limits_start_update(). However, some drivers (e.g. SCSI sd) may need to issue commands to a device to obtain limit values from the hardware with the queue limits locked. This creates a potential ABBA deadlock situation if a user attempts to modify a limit (thus freezing the device queue) while the device driver starts a revalidation of the device queue limits. Avoid such deadlock by not freezing the queue before calling the ->store_limit() method in struct queue_sysfs_entry and instead use the queue_limits_commit_update_frozen helper to freeze the queue after taking the limits lock. This also removes taking the sysfs lock for the store_limit method as it doesn't protect anything here, but creates even more nesting. Hopefully it will go away from the actual sysfs methods entirely soon. (commit log adapted from a similar patch from Damien Le Moal)

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-21807
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-21807/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-21807)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-21807"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-21807/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-21807"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-667.