CVE-2024-35970

CVE-2024-35970 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel with a CVSS 3.x base score of 6.3. It is not currently listed as actively exploited by CISA, and its EPSS exploit-prediction score is low. The underlying weakness is classified as CWE-667.

Key facts

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Clear stale u->oob_skb. syzkaller started to report deadlock of unix_gc_lock after commit 4090fa373f0e ("af_unix: Replace garbage collection algorithm."), but it just uncovers the bug that has been there since commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support"). The repro basically does the following. from socket import * from array import array c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM) c1.sendmsg([b'a'], [(SOL_SOCKET, SCM_RIGHTS, array("i", [c2.fileno()]))], MSG_OOB) c2.recv(1) # blocked as no normal data in recv queue c2.close() # done async and unblock recv() c1.close() # done async and trigger GC A socket sends its file descriptor to itself as OOB data and tries to receive normal data, but finally recv() fails due to async close(). The problem here is wrong handling of OOB skb in manage_oob(). When recvmsg() is called without MSG_OOB, manage_oob() is called to check if the peeked skb is OOB skb. In such a case, manage_oob() pops it out of the receive queue but does not clear unix_sock(sk)->oob_skb. This is wrong in terms of uAPI. Let's say we send "hello" with MSG_OOB, and "world" without MSG_OOB. The 'o' is handled as OOB data. When recv() is called twice without MSG_OOB, the OOB data should be lost. >>> from socket import * >>> c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0) >>> c1.send(b'hello', MSG_OOB) # 'o' is OOB data 5 >>> c1.send(b'world') 5 >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB data is not received b'hell' >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB date is skipped b'world' >>> c2.recv(5, MSG_OOB) # This should return an error b'o' In the same situation, TCP actually returns -EINVAL for the last recv(). Also, if we do not clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb, unix_poll() always set EPOLLPRI even though the data has passed through by previous recv(). To avoid these issues, we must clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb when dequeuing it from recv queue. The reason why the old GC did not trigger the deadlock is because the old GC relied on the receive queue to detect the loop. When it is triggered, the socket with OOB data is marked as GC candidate because file refcount == inflight count (1). However, after traversing all inflight sockets, the socket still has a positive inflight count (1), thus the socket is excluded from candidates. Then, the old GC lose the chance to garbage-collect the socket. With the old GC, the repro continues to create true garbage that will never be freed nor detected by kmemleak as it's linked to the global inflight list. That's why we couldn't even notice the issue.

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2024-35970?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Clear stale u->oob_skb. syzkaller started to report deadlock of unix_gc_lock after commit 4090fa373f0e ("af_unix: Replace garbage collection algorithm."), but it just uncovers the bug that has been there since commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support"). The repro basically does the following. from socket import * from array import array c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM) c1.sendmsg([b'a'], [(SOL_SOCKET, SCM_RIGHTS, array("i", [c2.fileno()]))], MSG_OOB) c2.recv(1) # blocked as no normal data in recv queue c2.close() # done async and unblock recv() c1.close() # done async and trigger GC A socket sends its file descriptor to itself as OOB data and tries to receive normal data, but finally recv() fails due to async close(). The problem here is wrong handling of OOB skb in manage_oob(). When recvmsg() is called without MSG_OOB, manage_oob() is called to check if the peeked skb is OOB skb. In such a case, manage_oob() pops it out of the receive queue but does not clear unix_sock(sk)->oob_skb. This is wrong in terms of uAPI. Let's say we send "hello" with MSG_OOB, and "world" without MSG_OOB. The 'o' is handled as OOB data. When recv() is called twice without MSG_OOB, the OOB data should be lost. >>> from socket import * >>> c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0) >>> c1.send(b'hello', MSG_OOB) # 'o' is OOB data 5 >>> c1.send(b'world') 5 >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB data is not received b'hell' >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB date is skipped b'world' >>> c2.recv(5, MSG_OOB) # This should return an error b'o' In the same situation, TCP actually returns -EINVAL for the last recv(). Also, if we do not clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb, unix_poll() always set EPOLLPRI even though the data has passed through by previous recv(). To avoid these issues, we must clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb when dequeuing it from recv queue. The reason why the old GC did not trigger the deadlock is because the old GC relied on the receive queue to detect the loop. When it is triggered, the socket with OOB data is marked as GC candidate because file refcount == inflight count (1). However, after traversing all inflight sockets, the socket still has a positive inflight count (1), thus the socket is excluded from candidates. Then, the old GC lose the chance to garbage-collect the socket. With the old GC, the repro continues to create true garbage that will never be freed nor detected by kmemleak as it's linked to the global inflight list. That's why we couldn't even notice the issue.
How severe is CVE-2024-35970?
CVE-2024-35970 has a CVSS 3.x base score of 6.3, rated medium severity. It is exploitable over network with low attack complexity, requires low privileges and no user interaction. Impact on confidentiality is low, integrity low, and availability low.
Is CVE-2024-35970 being actively exploited?
It is not currently listed in CISA's KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit-prediction score is 0% (39th percentile), an estimate of the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
What products are affected by CVE-2024-35970?
CVE-2024-35970 primarily affects Linux Linux Kernel. In total, 4 product configurations (CPEs) are listed as vulnerable; see the affected-products list for the exact versions.
How do I fix CVE-2024-35970?
Review the linked vendor and NVD advisories for patched versions and mitigations, then upgrade or apply the recommended workaround.
Does CVE-2024-35970 have an EU (EUVD) identifier?
Yes. CVE-2024-35970 is tracked in the ENISA EU Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as EUVD-2024-35688.
When was CVE-2024-35970 published?
CVE-2024-35970 was published on 2024-05-20 and last updated on 2026-06-17.

References

Affected products (4)

More vulnerabilities in Linux Linux Kernel

All CVEs affecting Linux Linux Kernel →

Other CWE-667 (Improper Locking) vulnerabilities

Browse all CWE-667 (Improper Locking) vulnerabilities →