CVE-2025-38236
Vulnerability Scoring
Status: Received on 08 Jul 2025, 08:15 UTC
Published on: 08 Jul 2025, 08:15 UTC
CVSS Release:
CVE-2025-38236: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Don't leave consecutive consumed OOB skbs. Jann Horn reported a use-after-free in unix_stream_read_generic(). The following sequences reproduce the issue: $ python3 from socket import * s1, s2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM) s1.send(b'x', MSG_OOB) s2.recv(1, MSG_OOB) # leave a consumed OOB skb s1.send(b'y', MSG_OOB) s2.recv(1, MSG_OOB) # leave a consumed OOB skb s1.send(b'z', MSG_OOB) s2.recv(1) # recv 'z' illegally s2.recv(1, MSG_OOB) # access 'z' skb (use-after-free) Even though a user reads OOB data, the skb holding the data stays on the recv queue to mark the OOB boundary and break the next recv(). After the last send() in the scenario above, the sk2's recv queue has 2 leading consumed OOB skbs and 1 real OOB skb. Then, the following happens during the next recv() without MSG_OOB 1. unix_stream_read_generic() peeks the first consumed OOB skb 2. manage_oob() returns the next consumed OOB skb 3. unix_stream_read_generic() fetches the next not-yet-consumed OOB skb 4. unix_stream_read_generic() reads and frees the OOB skb , and the last recv(MSG_OOB) triggers KASAN splat. The 3. above occurs because of the SO_PEEK_OFF code, which does not expect unix_skb_len(skb) to be 0, but this is true for such consumed OOB skbs. while (skip >= unix_skb_len(skb)) { skip -= unix_skb_len(skb); skb = skb_peek_next(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue); ... } In addition to this use-after-free, there is another issue that ioctl(SIOCATMARK) does not function properly with consecutive consumed OOB skbs. So, nothing good comes out of such a situation. Instead of complicating manage_oob(), ioctl() handling, and the next ECONNRESET fix by introducing a loop for consecutive consumed OOB skbs, let's not leave such consecutive OOB unnecessarily. Now, while receiving an OOB skb in unix_stream_recv_urg(), if its previous skb is a consumed OOB skb, it is freed. [0]: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in unix_stream_read_actor (net/unix/af_unix.c:3027) Read of size 4 at addr ffff888106ef2904 by task python3/315 CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 315 Comm: python3 Not tainted 6.16.0-rc1-00407-gec315832f6f9 #8 PREEMPT(voluntary) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-4.fc42 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:122) print_report (mm/kasan/report.c:409 mm/kasan/report.c:521) kasan_report (mm/kasan/report.c:636) unix_stream_read_actor (net/unix/af_unix.c:3027) unix_stream_read_generic (net/unix/af_unix.c:2708 net/unix/af_unix.c:2847) unix_stream_recvmsg (net/unix/af_unix.c:3048) sock_recvmsg (net/socket.c:1063 (discriminator 20) net/socket.c:1085 (discriminator 20)) __sys_recvfrom (net/socket.c:2278) __x64_sys_recvfrom (net/socket.c:2291 (discriminator 1) net/socket.c:2287 (discriminator 1) net/socket.c:2287 (discriminator 1)) do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1) arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1)) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130) RIP: 0033:0x7f8911fcea06 Code: 5d e8 41 8b 93 08 03 00 00 59 5e 48 83 f8 fc 75 19 83 e2 39 83 fa 08 75 11 e8 26 ff ff ff 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 8b 45 10 0f 05 <48> 8b 5d f8 c9 c3 0f 1f 40 00 f3 0f 1e fa 55 48 89 e5 48 83 ec 08 RSP: 002b:00007fffdb0dccb0 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002d RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007fffdb0dcdc8 RCX: 00007f8911fcea06 RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 00007f8911a5e060 RDI: 0000000000000006 RBP: 00007fffdb0dccd0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00007f89119a7d20 R13: ffffffffc4653600 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 </TASK> Allocated by task 315: kasan_save_stack (mm/kasan/common.c:48) kasan_save_track (mm/kasan/common.c:60 (discriminator 1) mm/kasan/common.c:69 (discriminator 1)) __kasan_slab_alloc (mm/kasan/common.c:348) kmem_cache_alloc_ ---truncated---
The exploitability of CVE-2025-38236 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).
No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-38236.
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-2025-38236, 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-2025-38236, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
Unknown
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.