Highly exploitable, CVE-2025-22059 poses a critical security risk that could lead to severe breaches.
Status: Modified
Last updated: 🕕 30 Jul 2026, 06:22 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 16 Apr 2025, 15:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 469 days
CVSS Release: version 3
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Secondary
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVE-2025-22059: 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").
The exploitability of CVE-2025-22059 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2025-22059 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-22059, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-22059, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.