Patchlage

CVE-2026-64109

CVE CVE-2026-64109EUVD EUVD-2026-45794Published 2026-07-19T15:40:11.000ZLast changed 2026-08-05T12:39:18.000ZCVSS 8.8

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Fix UAF read of tail->len in unix_stream_data_wait() unix_stream_data_wait() does skb_peek_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue) without holding any lock that prevents SKBs on that queue from being dequeued and freed. This has been the case since commit 79f632c71bea ("unix/stream: fix peeking with an offset larger than data in queue"). The first consequence of this is that the pointer comparison `tail != last` can be false even if `last` semantically refers to an already-freed SKB while `tail` is a new SKB allocated at the same address; which can cause unix_stream_data_wait() to wrongly keep blocking after new data has arrived, but only in a weird scenario where a peeking recv() and a normal recv() on the same socket are racing, which is probably not a real problem. But since commit 2b514574f7e8 ("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets"), `tail` is actually dereferenced, which can cause UAF in the following race scenario (where test_setup() runs single-threaded, and afterwards, test_thread1() and test_thread2() run concurrently in two threads: ``` static int socks[2]; void test_setup(void) { socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, socks); send(socks[1], "A", 1, 0); int peekoff = 1; setsockopt(socks[0], SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEEK_OFF, &peekoff, sizeof(peekoff)); } void test_thread1(void) { char dummy; recv(socks[0], &dummy, 1, MSG_PEEK); } void test_thread2(void) { char dummy; recv(socks[0], &dummy, 1, 0); shutdown(socks[1], SHUT_WR); } ``` when racing like this: ``` thread1 thread2 unix_stream_read_generic mutex_lock(&u->iolock) skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue) skb_peek_next(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue) mutex_unlock(&u->iolock) unix_stream_read_generic unix_state_lock(sk) skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue) unix_state_unlock(sk) unix_stream_data_wait unix_state_lock(sk) tail = skb_peek_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue) spin_lock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock) __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue) spin_unlock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock) consume_skb(skb) [frees the SKB] `tail != last`: false `tail`: true `tail->len != last_len` ***UAF*** ``` Fix the UAF by removing the read of tail->len; checking tail->len would only make sense if SKBs in the receive queue of a UNIX socket could grow, which can no longer happen. Kuniyuki explained: > When commit 869e7c62486e ("net: af_unix: implement stream sendpage > support") added sendpage() support, data could be appended to the last > skb in the receiver's queue. > > That's why we needed to check if the length of the last skb was changed > while waiting for new data in unix_stream_data_wait(). > > However, commit a0dbf5f818f9 ("af_unix: Support MSG_SPLICE_PAGES") and > commit 57d44a354a43 ("unix: Convert unix_stream_sendpage() to use > MSG_SPLICE_PAGES") refactored sendmsg(), and now data is always added > to a new skb. That means this fix is not suitable for kernels before 6.5.

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.