CVE-2026-23394

MEDIUMNVD 4.74.7
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 4.7 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2026-03-25. NVD baseline CVSS 4.7; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
4.7
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: 0%CVSS: 4.7Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

A fix is available — apply it.

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

af_unix: Give up GC if MSG_PEEK intervened.

Igor Ushakov reported that GC purged the receive queue of an alive socket due to a race with MSG_PEEK with a nice repro.

This is the exact same issue previously fixed by commit cbcf01128d0a ("af_unix: fix garbage collect vs MSG_PEEK").

After GC was replaced with the current algorithm, the cited commit removed the locking dance in unix_peek_fds() and reintroduced the same issue.

The problem is that MSG_PEEK bumps a file refcount without interacting with GC.

Consider an SCC containing sk-A and sk-B, where sk-A is close()d but can be recv()ed via sk-B.

The bad thing happens if sk-A is recv()ed with MSG_PEEK from sk-B and sk-B is close()d while GC is checking unix_vertex_dead() for sk-A and sk-B.

GC thread User thread --------- ----------- unix_vertex_dead(sk-A) -> true <------. \ `------ recv(sk-B, MSG_PEEK) invalidate !! -> sk-A's file refcount : 1 -> 2

close(sk-B) -> sk-B's file refcount : 2 -> 1 unix_vertex_dead(sk-B) -> true

Initially, sk-A's file refcount is 1 by the inflight fd in sk-B recvq. GC thinks sk-A is dead because the file refcount is the same as the number of its inflight fds.

However, sk-A's file refcount is bumped silently by MSG_PEEK, which invalidates the previous evaluation.

At this moment, sk-B's file refcount is 2; one by the open fd, and one by the inflight fd in sk-A. The subsequent close() releases one refcount by the former.

Finally, GC incorrectly concludes that both sk-A and sk-B are dead.

One option is to restore the locking dance in unix_peek_fds(), but we can resolve this more elegantly thanks to the new algorithm.

The point is that the issue does not occur without the subsequent close() and we actually do not need to synchronise MSG_PEEK with the dead SCC detection.

When the issue occurs, close() and GC touch the same file refcount. If GC sees the refcount being decremented by close(), it can just give up garbage-collecting the SCC.

Therefore, we only need to signal the race during MSG_PEEK with a proper memory barrier to make it visible to the GC.

Let's use seqcount_t to notify GC when MSG_PEEK occurs and let it defer the SCC to the next run.

This way no locking is needed on the MSG_PEEK side, and we can avoid imposing a penalty on every MSG_PEEK unnecessarily.

Note that we can retry within unix_scc_dead() if MSG_PEEK is detected, but we do not do so to avoid hung task splat from abusive MSG_PEEK calls.

CVSS v3
4.7
EG Score
4.7(medium)
EG Risk
26(Track)
EG Risk 26/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity47% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS
0.5%
KEV
Not listed

Published

March 25, 2026

Last Modified

June 1, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-23394(2)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(13)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(11)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 37× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 111 total refreshes for this CVE.

  1. 2026-07-24 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-23 03:07 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-07-22 14:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-19 14:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-19 14:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-19 02:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-19 02:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-18 10:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-18 10:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-17 07:16 UTCOSV refresh
  11. 2026-07-16 17:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-16 17:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-15 16:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-15 16:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-13 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-12 05:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-12 05:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-11 08:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-08 15:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-08 15:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-07 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-07-05 02:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-04 06:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-04 06:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-01 15:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-01 15:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-06-29 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-06-29 05:02 UTCOSV refresh
  8. 2026-06-28 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-06-28 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-06-28 04:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-06-28 04:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-06-27 03:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-06-24 14:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-06-24 14:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-23 21:33 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-06-23 21:32 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-21 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-21 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-06-18 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-17 17:53 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-17 17:53 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-15 17:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-14 23:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-13 23:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-12 23:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-12 23:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-11 23:30 UTCVendor advisory
  28. 2026-06-11 23:30 UTCGHSA enrichment
  29. 2026-06-11 14:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-10 22:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-10 17:32 UTCVendor advisory
  32. 2026-06-10 17:32 UTCGHSA enrichment
  33. 2026-06-10 13:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-09 15:54 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-06-09 15:54 UTCGHSA enrichment
  36. 2026-06-08 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-08 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-08 14:12 UTCVendor advisory
  39. 2026-06-08 14:12 UTCGHSA enrichment
  40. 2026-06-07 15:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-07 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-07 12:28 UTCVendor advisory
  43. 2026-06-07 12:27 UTCGHSA enrichment
  44. 2026-06-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-06-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-05 22:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-04 13:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-04 13:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-04 13:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-02 20:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-06-02 20:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-06-01 07:13 UTCOSV refresh
  57. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-05-31 00:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-05-31 00:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-05-31 00:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-05-29 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-05-29 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  66. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  67. 2026-05-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  68. 2026-05-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-05-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-05-26 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  71. 2026-05-26 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  72. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  73. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  75. 2026-05-22 21:16 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-23394?
CVE-2026-23394 is a medium vulnerability published on March 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: afunix: Give up GC if MSGPEEK intervened. Igor Ushakov reported that GC purged the receive queue of an alive socket due to a race with MSG_PEEK with a nice repro. This is the exact same issue previously fixed by commit cbcf01128d0a…
When was CVE-2026-23394 disclosed?
CVE-2026-23394 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on March 25, 2026, with the most recent update on June 1, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-23394 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-23394 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% percentile likelihood of exploitation in the next 30 days — higher percentiles indicate greater predicted risk.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-23394?
CVE-2026-23394 has a CVSS v3 base score of 4.7 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-23394?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-23394, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-23394

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-23394?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.