Understanding CVE-2025-38218: F2FS Patch and Azure Linux Attestations

A focused upstream patch for the Linux kernel's F2FS driver resolved a subtle but consequential metadata-checking bug that could trigger kernel panics when mounting deliberately malformed or improperly resized F2FS images, and Microsoft’s public guidance makes one thing clear: Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product the company has explicitly attested so far as containing the vulnerable F2FS component for CVE‑2025‑38218, but that does not mean other Microsoft-distributed kernels and images cannot be affected — operators must verify their specific product builds and kernel configurations to be certain.

Background​

The vulnerability tracked as CVE‑2025‑38218 was published in early July 2025 and arises from an insufficient sanity check in F2FS’s checkpoint validation logic. In particular, an attacker or maintenance script that drives a specific sequence of F2FS image creation and resizing can produce an inconsistent Segment Information Table (SIT) bitmap size vs. the expected number of SIT blocks. When the kernel later attempts to mount or operate on that image, internal indexing computations can walk past the end of an allocated bitmap and hit an assertion or kernel BUG, producing an immediate kernel panic and denial-of-service.
This is not a remote-code-execution flaw; the practical risk is denial-of-service and filesystem corruption for systems that create or mount affected F2FS images. The Linux community issued small, surgical fixes in the F2FS superblock/checkpoint validation code to add sanity checks and early returns to prevent the out‑of‑bounds access path. Distributors and downstream vendors have since been backporting or shipping updated kernels to remediate the issue.

---

What the patch fixes (technical overview)​

The root cause, in plain terms​

• F2FS tracks its metadata layout with a SIT (Segment Information Table) and related bitmaps.
• A key structure field, sit_bitmap_size, represents the size of the SIT bitmap in units the code expects; when multiplied by eight it yields the number of available SIT bitmap slots.
• Under a contrived test sequence (create a small image, format, resize to conflicting sizes), the computed number of SIT blocks (sit_blk_cnt) can exceed the true capacity described by sit_bitmap_size*8.
• The code that builds SIT entries (via functions such as build_sit_entries() and current_sit_addr()) uses the computed block counts to index into the SIT bitmap. If the computed counts are larger than the actual bitmap capacity, indexing goes out of bounds.
• If the primary bitmap and mirror differ, the code trips an internal f2fs assertion (f2fs_bug_on()), which escalates to a kernel BUG and panic.

The fix​

• The upstream patch adds sanity checks in checkpoint validation (the code path that inspects the sit bitmap and other checkpoint values).
• When the sanity check detects bogus/contradictory counts, F2FS performs a safe early return or rejects the malformed image rather than proceeding into indexing paths that assume consistency.
• The change is small and defensive in nature: it prevents an out-of-bounds index and avoids a kernel panic while preserving normal behavior for valid images.

This defensive approach aligns with how filesystem maintainers typically address logic errors: validate inputs early and fail safe.

---

Why this matters: impact and exploitation model​

• Exploitability: This is a local, low-complexity denial-of-service class issue. An attacker needs file-level access to create or manipulate an F2FS image (or a mountable device) and then cause the target host to mount it. That can be achieved by any unprivileged or low‑privilege user who can write block images that will later be mounted by a privileged process or by administrators who accidentally mount a corrupted image.
• Impact: The immediate impact is a kernel panic and system unavailability; secondary impact includes possible filesystem corruption and recovery effort for systems that attempted to mount a corrupted image.
• Severity: Typical scoring around this issue was in the medium range because it requires low-level access (local) and results primarily in availability loss, not confidentiality or privilege escalation.

---

Microsoft’s public position: Azure Linux and the product scope question​

Microsoft’s advisory language for related F2FS CVEs has emphasized a product-scoped attestation practice: the company has explicitly named Azure Linux as a product that “includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected” for F2FS-related CVEs in this timeframe. Microsoft also references its program to publish machine-readable attestations (CSAF/VEX) for Azure Linux to make component-level impact and status transparent to customers.
That statement is precise but deliberately narrow. It says:

• Microsoft will declare Azure Linux as a tracked product for this CVE because Azure Linux is known to ship a kernel build that includes F2FS.
• Microsoft will update the CVE entry if impact to additional Microsoft products is identified.

This is an important distinction: Microsoft is not saying other Microsoft products are unaffected — it is saying Microsoft has currently confirmed the component is included in Azure Linux and is tracking it there. For any other Microsoft-distributed artifact (WSL2 kernel binaries, Windows images in special-purpose distributions, Azure Marketplace appliances, or specialized kernels used by Azure services), Microsoft’s public statement indicates those products will be listed if and when they are found to include the vulnerable component.

---

Is Azure Linux the only Microsoft product that includes F2FS?​

Short answer: No — Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product Microsoft has publicly attested so far to include the vulnerable F2FS code for this CVE, but it is not logically the only Microsoft artifact that could contain it. Whether any other Microsoft distribution or product is affected depends on two independent, technical facts:

• Build-time kernel configuration. The presence of the F2FS driver in a kernel is controlled by the kernel configuration symbol CONFIG_F2FS_FS (either built-in or provided as a module). If a Microsoft kernel build has CONFIG_F2FS_FS enabled, it includes the F2FS code; if not, it does not.
• Kernel version and upstream commit mapping. Even if F2FS is present, the shipped kernel version (or whether the vendor backported upstream fixes) determines whether the vulnerable commit range is included.

Because of those two axes, a Microsoft product that ships a kernel could be either affected or not depending entirely on build and packaging choices. Examples:

• Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 (WSL2) runs a Microsoft-supplied Linux kernel binary. Many default WSL kernels historically omit some filesystem drivers not needed for WSL scenarios; community reports and guidance show F2FS is not guaranteed to be present in the default WSL kernel. If an operator uses a custom WSL kernel, they may have added F2FS and therefore would need to verify and patch.
• Azure Marketplace images, AKS node images, and other Azure VM images may use vendor-supplied kernels. If those kernels include F2FS and fall into the vulnerable upstream commit range, they are potentially affected.
• Any Microsoft distribution that packages a kernel with F2FS enabled (including specialized or internal builds) could be affected until Microsoft or the vendor publishes a product-level attestation.

In short: Microsoft’s statement is accurate as far as attestations go, but it should not be read as a blanket guarantee other Microsoft products are unaffected. Operators must verify product-level kernels.

---

How to verify whether a given host or Microsoft product is affected​

Administrators and developers should check three things: kernel configuration, presence of F2FS modules, and kernel package version vs. upstream fixes.

Quick checklist (high level)​

• Does the kernel include F2FS support? (CONFIG_F2FS_FS)
• Is the running kernel version one that contains the vulnerable upstream commits?
• Is any running workload mounting or creating F2FS images or using resize.f2fs?

Commands to run on a live Linux host (VM, bare-metal, or WSL):​

• Check whether F2FS is present at runtime:
• lsmod | grep f2fs — shows loaded F2FS module if it is modular.
• findmnt -t f2fs — shows any mounted F2FS filesystems.
• Inspect kernel config:
• zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -w CONFIG_F2FS_FS — checks the running kernel’s compiled config (if /proc/config.gz exists).
• If /proc/config.gz is not present: grep -w CONFIG_F2FS_FS /boot/config-$(uname -r)
• Confirm kernel version:
• uname -r — get the kernel release string. Cross-reference against vendor advisories and the upstream fix commit mapping to confirm whether the kernel includes the patched commits.
• For WSL2:
• Inside the WSL instance run the same zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -w CONFIG_F2FS_FS.
• If you rely on the Microsoft-provided WSL kernel, check the kernel config shipped by Microsoft for the WSL build (or check your host WSL settings if using a custom kernel).
• If F2FS is present and kernel predates the fix, treat the system as potentially vulnerable and schedule remediation.

What to do if you find F2FS enabled​

• If the kernel is Microsoft-supplied and you’re running an Azure Linux image, follow Azure Linux advisories and install the vendor-updated kernel package as soon as it’s available.
• For WSL2:
• If you rely on the Microsoft-provided kernel and it includes F2FS and predates the fix, await Microsoft’s WSL kernel update, or switch to a custom kernel that includes the upstream fix and configure .wslconfig to point to that kernel.
• If you already use a custom WSL kernel, rebuild with the patched upstream commits or disable F2FS support in the kernel config.
• For other Azure images and Marketplace appliances:
• Confirm the image’s kernel artifact and consult the image publisher’s advisory. If the image is Microsoft-provided (for example, an Azure Marketplace image published by Microsoft), watch Microsoft’s attestations and advisories.

---

Mitigation and remediation options​

• Apply vendor/kernel updates that incorporate the upstream fix as soon as they’re available.
• As a temporary mitigation, avoid creating or resizing F2FS images with resize.f2fs on systems where the kernel is unpatched. If you must resize, perform the operation on a fully-patched host or in a controlled environment that will not mount compromised images.
• Enforce separation of duties and limit who can create or mount block device images on production systems — the vulnerability requires a local actor to craft the malicious image or trigger a bad resize sequence.
• Use image scanning and validation for any block images before mounting on production hosts. Reject or quarantine images with malformed metadata signatures.

---

Critical analysis of Microsoft’s statement and the VEX/CSAF approach​

Microsoft’s language — that Azure Linux “includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected,” and that the company will update the CVE record if other products are identified — is conservative and narrowly accurate. There are positive and negative implications to unpack.

Strengths of the approach​

• Product-scoped attestation reduces ambiguity. By publishing machine-readable CSAF/VEX attestations for Azure Linux, Microsoft provides customers with the ability to programmatically determine whether a specific Microsoft product image contains a given vulnerable component and whether it has been patched.
• Transparency commitment. Publishing attestations and product mappings allows large customers and automated toolchains to make deterministic risk decisions about images and workloads.
• Operational clarity for Azure Linux customers. If you run Azure Linux, Microsoft’s attestation gives you a clear remediation path and status updates.

Residual risks and limitations​

• Attestation coverage gaps. Microsoft’s published VEX/CSAF for Azure Linux does not automatically cover every Microsoft-distributed kernel artifact. For example, WSL kernel binaries, certain appliance images, or older snapshot images used internally or in specialized services may not be reflected until a manual discovery and attestation process runs.
• Customer burden for verification. Operators still must verify kernel configs on each product and image they run. Microsoft’s statement effectively shifts some verification work to customers for artifacts not explicitly attested.
• Timing and cadence. Public attestations are only as timely as the vendor’s discovery and tracking processes. If Microsoft discovers additional affected artifacts later, there is a window of uncertainty until the CVE record and attestations are updated.
• Custom builds and transforms. Many customers run custom kernels (in WSL, for example) or apply vendor backports; those customizations are outside Microsoft’s attestation scope and are the responsibility of the operator.

Overall, Microsoft’s approach is sensible — be explicit where you can be explicit — but it places a continuing verification requirement on customers that run Microsoft-managed and Microsoft-provided artifacts in mixed environments.

---

Practical guidance for enterprise operators (recommended checklist)​

• Inventory:
• Enumerate every Linux kernel artifact deployed in your environment that is supplied by Microsoft (Azure Linux VMs, AKS node images, Marketplace images, WSL hosts on endpoints).
• Record kernel versions and whether CONFIG_F2FS_FS is enabled.
• Verify:
• On each host, run the commands listed earlier to determine F2FS presence and kernel version.
• For WSL endpoints, check the WSL kernel config or your .wslconfig if you use a custom kernel.
• Prioritize:
• Prioritize remediation for image-mounting and multi-tenant hosts where an attacker could hand an image to a higher-privilege process to mount.
• Prioritize any centrally-managed infrastructure (Azure VMs acting as shared services, AKS node pools).
• Patch:
• Apply vendor kernel updates once available and test in staging before mass deployment.
• If a vendor update is not immediately available and you have high exposure, consider rebuilding kernels with the upstream fix or disabling F2FS support in custom kernels.
• Preventive controls:
• Restrict who can mount block devices and who can run resize.f2fs.
• Add image-scanning steps to CI pipelines that build or publish block images.
• Monitor:
• Watch Microsoft’s CSAF/VEX attestations for Azure Linux for status changes and watch vendor advisories for any newly impacted Microsoft products.

---

What to expect going forward​

• The kernel fixes for CVE‑2025‑38218 are small and already merged upstream; major distributions and kernel suppliers typically roll them into subsequent stable kernel releases and backport to long-term support branches.
• Microsoft’s attestation program for Azure Linux is intended to scale to additional artifacts when Microsoft determines a product includes a vulnerable upstream component. Expect updates if Microsoft finds the F2FS code in other internally distributed kernel artifacts.
• Administrators should treat product-level attestations as authoritative for the product they cover, but not as a universal guarantee for all Microsoft-distributed kernels or images.

---

Conclusion​

CVE‑2025‑38218 is a well-understood, medium‑severity Linux kernel issue affecting the F2FS filesystem that can produce kernel panics when incorrectly sized SIT bitmaps are encountered. Microsoft has publicly named Azure Linux as a product that includes the vulnerable open-source component and is being tracked and attested, which gives Azure Linux customers a clear remediation path. However, the presence of the vulnerable F2FS code in other Microsoft artifacts is a function of kernel configuration and build/version selection — meaning customers must still verify WSL kernels, Azure images, and any custom Microsoft-supplied kernels they use.
Operators should run the short verification checklist immediately, prioritize patching where F2FS is present and unpatched, and apply access controls and image validation to reduce the risk of local actors or accidental misconfiguration leading to kernel panics or filesystem corruption. Microsoft’s product-scoped attestations are a strong step toward transparency — but responsible operators must combine those attestations with direct verification of deployed kernels to close the remaining visibility gaps.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center