ghsa-pg9f-39pc-qf8g
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-04-10 14:30
Modified
2025-05-15 18:26
Severity ?
6.3 (Medium) - CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Summary
crossbeam-channel Vulnerable to Double Free on Drop
Details

The internal Channel type's Drop method has a race which could, in some circumstances, lead to a double-free. This could result in memory corruption.

Quoting from the upstream description in merge request #1187:

The problem lies in the fact that dicard_all_messages contained two paths that could lead to head.block being read but only one of them would swap the value. This meant that dicard_all_messages could end up observing a non-null block pointer (and therefore attempting to free it) without setting head.block to null. This would then lead to Channel::drop making a second attempt at dropping the same pointer.

The bug was introduced while fixing a memory leak, in upstream MR #1084, first published in 0.5.12.

The fix is in upstream MR #1187 and has been published in 0.5.15

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "crossbeam-channel"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.5.11"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.5.15"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-4574"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-415"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-10T14:30:39Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The internal `Channel` type\u0027s `Drop` method has a race\nwhich could, in some circumstances, lead to a double-free.\nThis could result in memory corruption.\n\nQuoting from the\n[upstream description in merge request \\#1187](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187#issue-2980761131):\n\n\u003e The problem lies in the fact that `dicard_all_messages` contained two paths that could lead to `head.block` being read but only one of them would swap the value. This meant that `dicard_all_messages` could end up observing a non-null block pointer (and therefore attempting to free it) without setting `head.block` to null. This would then lead to `Channel::drop` making a second attempt at dropping the same pointer.\n\nThe bug was introduced while fixing a memory leak, in\nupstream [MR \\#1084](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1084),\nfirst published in 0.5.12.\n\nThe fix is in\nupstream [MR \\#1187](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187)\nand has been published in 0.5.15",
  "id": "GHSA-pg9f-39pc-qf8g",
  "modified": "2025-05-15T18:26:52Z",
  "published": "2025-04-10T14:30:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4574"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-4574"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358890"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2025-0024.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "crossbeam-channel Vulnerable to Double Free on Drop"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.