CVE-20XX-?
agent?

CVE-2026-23394

4.7 MEDIUM 0.1% exploit odds Fix listed Other OS & kernel

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Give up GC if MSG_PEEK intervened. Igor Ushakov reported that GC purged the receive queue of an alive socket due to a race with MSG_PEEK with a nice repro. This is the exact same issue previously fixed by commit cbcf01128d0a ("af_unix: fix garbage collect vs MSG_PEEK"). After GC was replaced with the current algorithm, the cited commit removed the locking dance in unix_peek_fds() and reintroduced the same issue. The problem is that MSG_PEEK bumps a file refcount without interacting with GC. Consider an SCC containing sk-A and sk-B, where sk-A is close()d but can be recv()ed via sk-B. The bad thing happens if sk-A is recv()ed with MSG_PEEK from sk-B and sk-B is close()d while GC is checking unix_vertex_dead() for sk-A and sk-B. GC thread User thread --------- ----------- unix_vertex_dead(sk-A) -> true <------. \ `------ recv(sk-B, MSG_PEEK) invalidate !! -> sk-A's file refcount : 1 -> 2 close(sk-B) -> sk-B's file refcount : 2 -> 1 unix_vertex_dead(sk-B) -> true Initially, sk-A's file refcount is 1 by the inflight fd in sk-B recvq. GC thinks sk-A is dead because the file refcount is the same as the number of its inflight fds. However, sk-A's file refcount is bumped silently by MSG_PEEK, which invalidates the previous evaluation. At this moment, sk-B's file refcount is 2; one by the open fd, and one by the inflight fd in sk-A. The subsequent close() releases one refcount by the former. Finally, GC incorrectly concludes that both sk-A and sk-B are dead. One option is to restore the locking dance in unix_peek_fds(), but we can resolve this more elegantly thanks to the new algorithm. The point is that the issue does not occur without the subsequent close() and we actually do not need to synchronise MSG_PEEK with the dead SCC detection. When the issue occurs, close() and GC touch the same file refcount. If GC sees the refcount being decremented by close(), it can just give up garbage-collecting the SCC. Therefore, we only need to signal the race during MSG_PEEK with a proper memory barrier to make it visible to the GC. Let's use seqcount_t to notify GC when MSG_PEEK occurs and let it defer the SCC to the next run. This way no locking is needed on the MSG_PEEK side, and we can avoid imposing a penalty on every MSG_PEEK unnecessarily. Note that we can retry within unix_scc_dead() if MSG_PEEK is detected, but we do not do so to avoid hung task splat from abusive MSG_PEEK calls.

At a glance

Exploitability
Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of service disruption.
Exploit odds
0.1% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
Fix
A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

  1. PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
  2. Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

Details

Published
Last modified
Exploit probability
0.1% · EPSS, next 30 days
Weakness
CWE-362 · Race condition
Record status
Modified

Affected

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 4.7

Attack vector
Local
Complexity
High
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High
Raw vector

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

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-2026-23394.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-23394. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

· More options · Status badge

Meme: I wake up, CVE-2026-23394
Download Square Reddit

Fix and advisories

References

NVD record · CVE.org record