Skip to content

GHSA-chgr-c6px-7xpp RUSTSEC-2026-0177

PyO3 has a missing `Sync` bound on `PyCFunction::new_closure` closures

Medium crates.io
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
Fix
0.29.0
Upgrade pyo3 to this version or later

Description

PyCFunction::new_closure (and the temporary new_closure_bound complement in the 0.21–0.22 series) required the supplied closure to be Send + 'static but not Sync. The resulting PyCFunction is a Python callable that can be invoked from any Python thread, which means the closure may be called concurrently from multiple threads, and needs a Sync bound to prevent possible data races.

The problem exists under all Python versions but is particularly vulnerable under the newer free-threaded Python variant, which do not have serial execution imposed by the Global Interpreter Lock. Under releases protected by the GIL, the ability to "detach" from the Python interpreter temporarily inside the closure (e.g. by Python::detach) makes it possible for interleaved and/or concurrent execution of various portions of the closure.

PyO3 0.29.0 added a Sync bound to close this thread-safety bug.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pyo3
< 0.29.0
0.29.0
pyo3
>= 0.0.0-0, < 0.29.0
0.29.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

pyo3 crates.io → 0.29.0

cargo
cargo update -p pyo3 --precise 0.29.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
  • Architecture and Design: Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
  • Architecture and Design: Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring. Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).
  • Implementation: When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.
  • Implementation: Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.
  • Implementation: Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.
  • Implementation: Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.
  • Implementation: Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.
  • Implementation: Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-36hh-v3qg-5jq4
PyO3 has an Out-of-bounds Read in `nth` / `nth_back` for `PyList` and `PyTuple` iterators
High Also affects pyo3
GHSA-47qc-857f-7w7f
PyO3 has type confusion when accessing data from sublasses of subclasses of native types with `abi3` feature
High Also affects pyo3
GHSA-pph8-gcv7-4qj5
PyO3 Risk of buffer overflow in `PyString::from_object`
Low Also affects pyo3
GHSA-vxcf-c7mx-pg53
Build corruption when using `PYO3_CONFIG_FILE` environment variable
Medium Also affects pyo3
GHSA-6jgw-rgmm-7cv6
PyO3 has a risk of use-after-free in `borrowed` reads from Python weak references
Medium Also affects pyo3
GHSA-2vx6-fcw6-hpr6
Reference counting error in pyo3
Medium Also affects pyo3
GHSA-5wjr-9356-4wc8
Tokio: Race condition in `tokio::time::Interval`
Medium Same weakness, CWE-362
GHSA-44jh-23m7-hpcf
@better-auth/drizzle-adapter: Concurrent requests can exceed rate limits on PostgreSQL
Medium Same weakness, CWE-362
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor