CVE-2023-52934

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/MADV_COLLAPSE: catch !none !huge !bad pmd lookups In commit 34488399fa08 ("mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to MADV_COLLAPSE") we make the following change to find_pmd_or_thp_or_none(): - if (!pmd_present(pmde)) - return SCAN_PMD_NULL; + if (pmd_none(pmde)) + return SCAN_PMD_NONE; This was for-use by MADV_COLLAPSE file/shmem codepaths, where MADV_COLLAPSE might identify a pte-mapped hugepage, only to have khugepaged race-in, free the pte table, and clear the pmd. Such codepaths include: A) If we find a suitably-aligned compound page of order HPAGE_PMD_ORDER already in the pagecache. B) In retract_page_tables(), if we fail to grab mmap_lock for the target mm/address. In these cases, collapse_pte_mapped_thp() really does expect a none (not just !present) pmd, and we want to suitably identify that case separate from the case where no pmd is found, or it's a bad-pmd (of course, many things could happen once we drop mmap_lock, and the pmd could plausibly undergo multiple transitions due to intervening fault, split, etc). Regardless, the code is prepared install a huge-pmd only when the existing pmd entry is either a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd, or the none-pmd. However, the commit introduces a logical hole; namely, that we've allowed !none- && !huge- && !bad-pmds to be classified as genuine pte-table-mapping-pmds. One such example that could leak through are swap entries. The pmd values aren't checked again before use in pte_offset_map_lock(), which is expecting nothing less than a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd. We want to put back the !pmd_present() check (below the pmd_none() check), but need to be careful to deal with subtleties in pmd transitions and treatments by various arch. The issue is that __split_huge_pmd_locked() temporarily clears the present bit (or otherwise marks the entry as invalid), but pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() still need to return true while the pmd is in this transitory state. For example, x86's pmd_present() also checks the _PAGE_PSE , riscv's version also checks the _PAGE_LEAF bit, and arm64 also checks a PMD_PRESENT_INVALID bit. Covering all 4 cases for x86 (all checks done on the same pmd value): 1) pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() All we actually know here is that the PSE bit is set. Either: a) We aren't racing with __split_huge_page(), and PRESENT or PROTNONE is set. => huge-pmd b) We are currently racing with __split_huge_page(). The danger here is that we proceed as-if we have a huge-pmd, but really we are looking at a pte-mapping-pmd. So, what is the risk of this danger? The only relevant path is: madvise_collapse() -> collapse_pte_mapped_thp() Where we might just incorrectly report back "success", when really the memory isn't pmd-backed. This is fine, since split could happen immediately after (actually) successful madvise_collapse(). So, it should be safe to just assume huge-pmd here. 2) pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Either: a) PSE not set and either PRESENT or PROTNONE is. => pte-table-mapping pmd (or PROT_NONE) b) devmap. This routine can be called immediately after unlocking/locking mmap_lock -- or called with no locks held (see khugepaged_scan_mm_slot()), so previous VMA checks have since been invalidated. 3) !pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() Not possible. 4) !pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Neither PRESENT nor PROTNONE set => not present I've checked all archs that implement pmd_trans_huge() (arm64, riscv, powerpc, longarch, x86, mips, s390) and this logic roughly translates (though devmap treatment is unique to x86 and powerpc, and (3) doesn't necessarily hold in general -- but that doesn't matter since !pmd_present() always takes failure path). Also, add a comment above find_pmd_or_thp_or_none() ---truncated---

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52934

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52934

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025032720-CVE-2023-52934-bd3c@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Fix deferred
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2024:2394
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown Red Hat NVD
CVSS v3 Base Score 4.7 4.7
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity High High
Privileges Required Low Low
User Interaction None None
Scope Unchanged Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact None None
Integrity Impact None None
Availability Impact High High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

NVD CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our This content is not included.Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?

When a product is listed as "Out of Support Scope", it means a vulnerability with the impact level assigned to this CVE is no longer covered by its current support lifecycle phase. The product has been identified to contain the impacted component, but analysis to determine whether it is affected or not by this vulnerability was not performed. The product should be assumed to be affected. Customers are advised to apply any mitigation options documented on this page, consider removing or disabling the impacted component, or upgrade to a supported version of the product that has an update available.