GHSA-H72J-P4F7-VRCJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-04 12:30 – Updated: 2026-07-04 12:30
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

af_unix: Set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc().

Igor Ushakov reported that unix_gc() could run with gc_in_progress being false if the work is scheduled while running:

Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 -------- -------- -------- unix_schedule_gc() unix_schedule_gc() - if (!gc_in_progress)- if (!gc_in_progress) |- gc_in_progress = true | - queue_work() | unix_gc() <----------------/ | | |- gc_in_progress = true ...- queue_work() | | - gc_in_progress = false | | unix_gc() <---------------------------------------------' | ... /* gc_in_progress == false */ |- gc_in_progress = false

unix_peek_fpl() relies on gc_in_progress not to confuse GC by MSG_PEEK.

Let's set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc().

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-53361"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-04T12:17:02Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\naf_unix: Set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc().\n\nIgor Ushakov reported that unix_gc() could run with gc_in_progress\nbeing false if the work is scheduled while running:\n\n  Thread 1         Thread 2                     Thread 3\n  --------         --------                     --------\n                   unix_schedule_gc()           unix_schedule_gc()\n                   `- if (!gc_in_progress)      `- if (!gc_in_progress)\n                      |- gc_in_progress = true     |\n                      `- queue_work()              |\n  unix_gc() \u003c----------------/                     |\n  |                                                |- gc_in_progress = true\n  ...                                              `- queue_work()\n  |                                                       |\n  `- gc_in_progress = false                               |\n                                                          |\n  unix_gc() \u003c---------------------------------------------\u0027\n  |\n  ... /* gc_in_progress == false */\n  |\n  `- gc_in_progress = false\n\nunix_peek_fpl() relies on gc_in_progress not to confuse GC\nby MSG_PEEK.\n\nLet\u0027s set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc().",
  "id": "GHSA-h72j-p4f7-vrcj",
  "modified": "2026-07-04T12:30:29Z",
  "published": "2026-07-04T12:30:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53361"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0cfa78c050662784fc8e3ab26dbfd1dc632b2082"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/591f1ac217428a6d2b32a8ac14aac0fab44f155a"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/82c17e13d404f686e164590483fd6c1abaa675d0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d82ba05263c69fa2437fe93e4e561cc40f4c03af"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…