CVE-2025-22058
CVE Descriptions
udp: Fix memory accounting leak.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: udp: Fix memory accounting leak. Matt Dowling reported a weird UDP memory usage issue. Under normal operation, the UDP memory usage reported in /proc/net/sockstat remains close to zero. However, it occasionally spiked to 524,288 pages and never dropped. Moreover, the value doubled when the application was terminated. Finally, it caused intermittent packet drops. We can reproduce the issue with the script below [0]: 1. /proc/net/sockstat reports 0 pages # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 0 2. Run the script till the report reaches 524,288 # python3 test.py & sleep 5 # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 3 mem 524288 <-- (INT_MAX + 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT 3. Kill the socket and confirm the number never drops # pkill python3 && sleep 5 # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 524288 4. (necessary since v6.0) Trigger proto_memory_pcpu_drain() # python3 test.py & sleep 1 && pkill python3 5. The number doubles # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 1048577 The application set INT_MAX to SO_RCVBUF, which triggered an integer overflow in udp_rmem_release(). When a socket is close()d, udp_destruct_common() purges its receive queue and sums up skb->truesize in the queue. This total is calculated and stored in a local unsigned integer variable. The total size is then passed to udp_rmem_release() to adjust memory accounting. However, because the function takes a signed integer argument, the total size can wrap around, causing an overflow. Then, the released amount is calculated as follows: 1) Add size to sk->sk_forward_alloc. 2) Round down sk->sk_forward_alloc to the nearest lower multiple of PAGE_SIZE and assign it to amount. 3) Subtract amount from sk->sk_forward_alloc. 4) Pass amount >> PAGE_SHIFT to __sk_mem_reduce_allocated(). When the issue occurred, the total in udp_destruct_common() was 2147484480 (INT_MAX + 833), which was cast to -2147482816 in udp_rmem_release(). At 1) sk->sk_forward_alloc is changed from 3264 to -2147479552, and 2) sets -2147479552 to amount. 3) reverts the wraparound, so we don't see a warning in inet_sock_destruct(). However, udp_memory_allocated ends up doubling at 4). Since commit 3cd3399dd7a8 ("net: implement per-cpu reserves for memory_allocated"), memory usage no longer doubles immediately after a socket is close()d because __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() caches the amount in udp_memory_per_cpu_fw_alloc. However, the next time a UDP socket receives a packet, the subtraction takes effect, causing UDP memory usage to double. This issue makes further memory allocation fail once the socket's sk->sk_rmem_alloc exceeds net.ipv4.udp_rmem_min, resulting in packet drops. To prevent this issue, let's use unsigned int for the calculation and call sk_forward_alloc_add() only once for the small delta. Note that first_packet_length() also potentially has the same problem. [0]: from socket import * SO_RCVBUFFORCE = 33 INT_MAX = (2 ** 31) - 1 s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) s.bind(('', 0)) s.setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUFFORCE, INT_MAX) c = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) c.connect(s.getsockname()) data = b'a' * 100 while True: c.send(data)CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, making the memory unavailable for reallocation and reuse. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.10 To (excluding) 5.4.301
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.246
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.195
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.134
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.87
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.23
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.14 To (excluding) 6.14.2
