Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-22059
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn 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").
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisAn arithmetic operation produces a value too large for its type and wraps around to an unexpected — often tiny or negative — number. That miscalculated value then drives a memory allocation or a bounds check, opening the door to corruption. The fix is checked arithmetic and validating sizes before they're used.
General guidance for the integer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 6.10, < 6.12.23>= 6.13, < 6.13.11>= 6.14, < 6.14.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped6.12.236.13.116.14.2
Linux Kernel 6.12.23 / 6.13.11 / 6.14.2 or later
- Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which major kernel branch (6.12, 6.13, or 6.14) is available in your distribution's package repositories
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.12.23 or higher, OR version 6.13.11 or higher, OR version 6.14.2 or higher using your distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt-get dist-upgrade`, `yum update`, or `dnf upgrade`)
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- Verify the new kernel is running with `uname -r` and confirm the version includes the fix
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22059 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-22059 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data