CVE-2026-64109
Is CVE-2026-64109 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Fix UAF read of tail->len in unix_stream_data_wait() unix_stream_data_wait() does skb_peek_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue) without holding any lock that prevents SKBs on that queue from being dequeued and freed. This has been the case since commit 79f632c71bea ("unix/stream: fix peeking with an offset larger than data in queue"). The first consequence of this is that the pointer comparison `tail != last` can be false even if `last` semantically refers to an already-freed SKB while `tail` is a new SKB allocated at the same address; which can cause unix_stream_data_wait() to wrongly keep blocking after new data has arrived, but only in a weird scenario where a peeking recv() and a normal recv() on the same socket are racing, which is probably not a real problem. But since commit 2b514574f7e8 ("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets"), `tail` is actually dereferenced, which can cause UAF in the following race scenario (where test_setup() runs single-threaded, and afterwards, test_thread1() and test_thread2() run concurrently in two threads: ``` static int socks[2]; void test_setup(void) { socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, socks); send(socks[1], "A", 1, 0); int peekoff = 1; setsockopt(socks[0], SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEEK_OFF, &peekoff, sizeof(peekoff)); } void test_thread1(void) { char dummy; recv(socks[0], &dummy, 1, MSG_PEEK); } void test_thread2(void) { char dummy; recv(socks[0], &dummy, 1, 0); shutdown(socks[1], SHUT_WR); } ``` when racing like this: ``` thread1 thread2 unix_stream_read_generic mutex_lock(&u->iolock) skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue) skb_peek_next(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue) mutex_unlock(&u->iolock) unix_stream_read_generic unix_state_lock(sk) skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue) unix_state_unlock(sk) unix_stream_data_wait unix_state_lock(sk) tail = skb_peek_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue) spin_lock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock) __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue) spin_unlock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock) consume_skb(skb) [frees the SKB] `tail != last`: false `tail`: true `tail->len != last_len` ***UAF*** ``` Fix the UAF by removing the read of tail->len; checking tail->len would only make sense if SKBs in the receive queue of a UNIX socket could grow, which can no longer happen. Kuniyuki explained: > When commit 869e7c62486e ("net: af_unix: implement stream sendpage > support") added sendpage() support, data could be appended to the last > skb in the receiver's queue. > > That's why we needed to check if the length of the last skb was changed > while waiting for new data in unix_stream_data_wait(). > > However, commit a0dbf5f818f9 ("af_unix: Support MSG_SPLICE_PAGES") and > commit 57d44a354a43 ("unix: Convert unix_stream_sendpage() to use > MSG_SPLICE_PAGES") refactored sendmsg(), and now data is always added > to a new skb. That means this fix is not suitable for kernels before 6.5.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64109)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64109"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64109/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64109"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 8.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.