CVE-2025-22059

What it is

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").

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited over the network without logging in. High risk of service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.5% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2025-04-16 15:15 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-07-30 06:22 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.5% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.5 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2025-04-16 15:15 UTC

Last modified

2026-07-30 06:22 UTC

Exploit probability

0.5% · EPSS, next 30 days

Weakness

CWE-190 · Integer overflow

Record status

Modified

Affected

• Linux Kernel < 6.12.23
• Linux Kernel < 6.13.11
• Linux Kernel < 6.14.2

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.5

Attack vector

Network

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

None

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2025-22059.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-22059. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge