FlawAtlas
Search the atlas
CVE-2025-38637 Not scored

net_sched: skbprio: Remove overly strict queue assertions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net_sched: skbprio: Remove overly strict queue assertions In the current implementation, skbprio enqueue/dequeue contains an assertion that fails under certain conditions when SKBPRIO is used as a child qdisc under TBF with specific parameters. The failure occurs because TBF sometimes peeks at packets in the child qdisc without actually dequeuing them when tokens are unavailable. This peek operation creates a discrepancy between the parent and child qdisc queue length counters. When TBF later receives a high-priority packet, SKBPRIO's queue length may show a different value than what's reflected in its internal priority queue tracking, triggering the assertion. The fix removes this overly strict assertions in SKBPRIO, they are not necessary at all.

Exploit probability 0.3%
Published April 18, 2025
Required by Not available
Last source change August 12, 2026

02 / AFFECTED SOFTWARE

Affected packages

Linux Kernel
Unknown Unknown

03 / CONNECTIONS

Connected vulnerabilities

04 / EVIDENCE

Source records

Open Source Vulnerabilities CVE-2025-38637

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net_sched: skbprio: Remove overly strict queue assertions In the current implementation, skbprio enqueue/dequeue contains an assertion that fails under certain conditions when SKBPRIO is used as a child qdisc under TBF with specific parameters. The failure occurs because TBF sometimes peeks at packets in the child qdisc without actually dequeuing them when tokens are unavailable. This peek operation creates a discrepancy between the parent and child qdisc queue length counters. When TBF later receives a high-priority packet, SKBPRIO's queue length may show a different value than what's reflected in its internal priority queue tracking, triggering the assertion. The fix removes this overly strict assertions in SKBPRIO, they are not necessary at all.

View original source

05 / REFERENCES

Further evidence