In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix iter deadlock
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() may deadlock when lock_sock_fast() takes the fast
path and the iter prog attempts to update a sockmap. Which ends up spinning
at sock_map_update_elem()'s bh_lock_sock():
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
test_progs/1393 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
4 locks held by test_progs/1393:
#0: ffff88814b59c790 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x59/0x10d0
#1: ffff88811ec25fd8 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
#2: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
#3: ffffffff85a6a7c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_iter_run_prog+0x51d/0xb00
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
print_deadlock_bug.cold+0xc0/0xce
__lock_acquire+0x130f/0x2590
lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2b0
_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40
sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
bpf_prog_2d0075e5d9b721cd_dump_unix+0x55/0x4f4
bpf_iter_run_prog+0x5b9/0xb00
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show+0x1f7/0x2e0
bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
vfs_read+0x171/0xb20
ksys_read+0xff/0x200
do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix iter deadlock
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() may deadlock when lock_sock_fast() takes the fast
path and the iter prog attempts to update a sockmap. Which ends up spinning
at sock_map_update_elem()'s bh_lock_sock():
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
test_progs/1393 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
4 locks held by test_progs/1393:
#0: ffff88814b59c790 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x59/0x10d0
#1: ffff88811ec25fd8 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
#2: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
#3: ffffffff85a6a7c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_iter_run_prog+0x51d/0xb00
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
print_deadlock_bug.cold+0xc0/0xce
__lock_acquire+0x130f/0x2590
lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2b0
_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40
sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
bpf_prog_2d0075e5d9b721cd_dump_unix+0x55/0x4f4
bpf_iter_run_prog+0x5b9/0xb00
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show+0x1f7/0x2e0
bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
vfs_read+0x171/0xb20
ksys_read+0xff/0x200
do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
Default status is the baseline for the product, each version can override it (e.g. patched versions marked unaffected).
| Vendor | Product | Default status | Versions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | unaffected |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Linux | Linux | affected |
|
No data.
No data.
No data.
Advisories
No advisories yet.
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix iter deadlock bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() may deadlock when lock_sock_fast() takes the fast path and the iter prog attempts to update a sockmap. Which ends up spinning at sock_map_update_elem()'s bh_lock_sock(): WARNING: possible recursive locking detected test_progs/1393 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0 but task is already holding lock: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(slock-AF_UNIX); lock(slock-AF_UNIX); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by test_progs/1393: #0: ffff88814b59c790 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x59/0x10d0 #1: ffff88811ec25fd8 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0 #2: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0 #3: ffffffff85a6a7c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_iter_run_prog+0x51d/0xb00 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80 print_deadlock_bug.cold+0xc0/0xce __lock_acquire+0x130f/0x2590 lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2b0 _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40 sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0 bpf_prog_2d0075e5d9b721cd_dump_unix+0x55/0x4f4 bpf_iter_run_prog+0x5b9/0xb00 bpf_iter_unix_seq_show+0x1f7/0x2e0 bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0 vfs_read+0x171/0xb20 ksys_read+0xff/0x200 do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e | |
| Title | bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix iter deadlock | |
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| References |
|
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
MITRE
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2026-06-24T16:29:42.560Z
Reserved: 2026-06-09T07:44:35.380Z
Link: CVE-2026-53035
Vulnrichment
No data.
NVD
No data.
Redhat
No data.
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Weaknesses
No weakness.