CVE-2023-53591

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Moderate Moderate Impact What does this mean?
5.5 CVSS v3 Base Score

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlock in tc route query code Cited commit causes ABBA deadlock[0] when peer flows are created while holding the devcom rw semaphore. Due to peer flows offload implementation the lock is taken much higher up the call chain and there is no obvious way to easily fix the deadlock. Instead, since tc route query code needs the peer eswitch structure only to perform a lookup in xarray and doesn't perform any sleeping operations with it, refactor the code for lockless execution in following ways: - RCUify the devcom 'data' pointer. When resetting the pointer synchronously wait for RCU grace period before returning. This is fine since devcom is currently only used for synchronization of pairing/unpairing of eswitches which is rare and already expensive as-is. - Wrap all usages of 'paired' boolean in {READ|WRITE}_ONCE(). The flag has already been used in some unlocked contexts without proper annotations (e.g. users of mlx5_devcom_is_paired() function), but it wasn't an issue since all relevant code paths checked it again after obtaining the devcom semaphore. Now it is also used by mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() as "best effort" check to return NULL when devcom is being unpaired. Note that while RCU read lock doesn't prevent the unpaired flag from being changed concurrently it still guarantees that reader can continue to use 'data'. - Refactor mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport() function to use new mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() API which fixes the deadlock. [0]: [ 164.599612] ====================================================== [ 164.600142] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 164.600667] 6.3.0-rc3+ #1 Not tainted [ 164.601021] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 164.601557] handler1/3456 is trying to acquire lock: [ 164.601998] ffff88811f1714b0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.603078] but task is already holding lock: [ 164.603617] ffff88810137fc98 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core] [ 164.604459] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 164.605190] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 164.605848] -> #1 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}: [ 164.606380] down_read+0x39/0x50 [ 164.606772] mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core] [ 164.607336] mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport+0x86/0xc0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.607914] mlx5e_tc_tun_route_lookup+0x1a4/0x1d0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.608495] mlx5e_attach_decap_route+0xc6/0x1e0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.609063] mlx5e_tc_add_fdb_flow+0x1ea/0x360 [mlx5_core] [ 164.609627] __mlx5e_add_fdb_flow+0x2d2/0x430 [mlx5_core] [ 164.610175] mlx5e_configure_flower+0x952/0x1a20 [mlx5_core] [ 164.610741] tc_setup_cb_add+0xd4/0x200 [ 164.611146] fl_hw_replace_filter+0x14c/0x1f0 [cls_flower] [ 164.611661] fl_change+0xc95/0x18a0 [cls_flower] [ 164.612116] tc_new_tfilter+0x3fc/0xd20 [ 164.612516] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x418/0x5b0 [ 164.612936] netlink_rcv_skb+0x54/0x100 [ 164.613339] netlink_unicast+0x190/0x250 [ 164.613746] netlink_sendmsg+0x245/0x4a0 [ 164.614150] sock_sendmsg+0x38/0x60 [ 164.614522] ____sys_sendmsg+0x1d0/0x1e0 [ 164.614934] ___sys_sendmsg+0x80/0xc0 [ 164.615320] __sys_sendmsg+0x51/0x90 [ 164.615701] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 [ 164.616083] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 [ 164.616568] -> #0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 164.617210] __lock_acquire+0x159e/0x26e0 [ 164.617638] lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2a0 [ 164.618018] __mutex_lock+0x92/0xcd0 [ 164.618401] mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.618943] post_process_attr+0x153/0x2d0 [ ---truncated---

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53591

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-53591

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025100427-CVE-2023-53591-8496@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 Out of support scope
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Fix deferred
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Fixed RHSA-2023:7077
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Fix deferred
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2023:6583
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 5.5 5.5
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity Low Low
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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

NVD CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/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.