Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%
Get alerts for future matching vulnerabilitiesLog in to subscribe
I. Basic Information for CVE-2025-22059
Vulnerability Information

Have questions about the vulnerability? See if Shenlong's analysis helps!
View Shenlong Deep Dive ↗

Although we use advanced large model technology, its output may still contain inaccurate or outdated information.Shenlong tries to ensure data accuracy, but please verify and judge based on the actual situation.

Vulnerability Title
udp: Fix multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc.
Source: NVD (National Vulnerability Database)
Vulnerability Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: udp: Fix multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc. __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb() has the following condition: if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) > sk->sk_rcvbuf) goto drop; sk->sk_rcvbuf is initialised by net.core.rmem_default and later can be configured by SO_RCVBUF, which is limited by net.core.rmem_max, or SO_RCVBUFFORCE. If we set INT_MAX to sk->sk_rcvbuf, the condition is always false as sk->sk_rmem_alloc is also signed int. Then, the size of the incoming skb is added to sk->sk_rmem_alloc unconditionally. This results in integer overflow (possibly multiple times) on sk->sk_rmem_alloc and allows a single socket to have skb up to net.core.udp_mem[1]. For example, if we set a large value to udp_mem[1] and INT_MAX to sk->sk_rcvbuf and flood packets to the socket, we can see multiple overflows: # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 3 mem 7956736 <-- (7956736 << 12) bytes > INT_MAX * 15 ^- PAGE_SHIFT # ss -uam State Recv-Q ... UNCONN -1757018048 ... <-- flipping the sign repeatedly skmem:(r2537949248,rb2147483646,t0,tb212992,f1984,w0,o0,bl0,d0) Previously, we had a boundary check for INT_MAX, which was removed by commit 6a1f12dd85a8 ("udp: relax atomic operation on sk->sk_rmem_alloc"). A complete fix would be to revert it and cap the right operand by INT_MAX: rmem = atomic_add_return(size, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc); if (rmem > min(size + (unsigned int)sk->sk_rcvbuf, INT_MAX)) goto uncharge_drop; but we do not want to add the expensive atomic_add_return() back just for the corner case. Casting rmem to unsigned int prevents multiple wraparounds, but we still allow a single wraparound. # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 3 mem 524288 <-- (INT_MAX + 1) >> 12 # ss -uam State Recv-Q ... UNCONN -2147482816 ... <-- INT_MAX + 831 bytes skmem:(r2147484480,rb2147483646,t0,tb212992,f3264,w0,o0,bl0,d14468947) So, let's define rmem and rcvbuf as unsigned int and check skb->truesize only when rcvbuf is large enough to lower the overflow possibility. Note that we still have a small chance to see overflow if multiple skbs to the same socket are processed on different core at the same time and each size does not exceed the limit but the total size does. Note also that we must ignore skb->truesize for a small buffer as explained in commit 363dc73acacb ("udp: be less conservative with sock rmem accounting").
Source: NVD (National Vulnerability Database)
CVSS Information
N/A
Source: NVD (National Vulnerability Database)
Vulnerability Type
N/A
Source: NVD (National Vulnerability Database)
Vulnerability Title
Linux kernel 安全漏洞
Source: CNNVD (China National Vulnerability Database)
Vulnerability Description
Linux kernel是美国Linux基金会的开源操作系统Linux所使用的内核。 Linux kernel存在安全漏洞,该漏洞源于sk_rmem_alloc多次回绕,可能导致内存溢出。
Source: CNNVD (China National Vulnerability Database)
CVSS Information
N/A
Source: CNNVD (China National Vulnerability Database)
Vulnerability Type
N/A
Source: CNNVD (China National Vulnerability Database)
Affected Products
VendorProductAffected VersionsCPESubscribe
LinuxLinux 6a1f12dd85a8b24f871dfcf467378660af9c064d ~ 94d5ad7b41122be33ebc2a6830fe710cba1ecd75 -
LinuxLinux 6.10 -
II. Public POCs for CVE-2025-22059
#POC DescriptionSource LinkShenlong Link
AI-Generated POCPremium

No public POC found.

Login to generate AI POC
III. Intelligence Information for CVE-2025-22059
Please Login to view more intelligence information
IV. Related Vulnerabilities
V. Comments for CVE-2025-22059

No comments yet


Leave a comment