Strix
26.1K

CVE-2023-52699

MEDIUMCVSS 5.3/10EPSS 0.97%

Last modified

CVE-2023-52699 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.3/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).. EPSS estimates a 0.97% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
5.3/10

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

EPSS Probability
0.97%

57.6th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel< 4.19.312
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 4.20, < 5.4.274
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.5, < 5.10.215
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.11, < 5.15.155
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.16, < 6.1.86
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.2, < 6.6.27
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.8.6
DebianDebian Linux10.0

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2023-52699?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).
How severe is CVE-2023-52699?
CVE-2023-52699 has a CVSS score of 5.3/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.97% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2023-52699?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

Are you affected by CVE-2023-52699?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST