CVE-2023-53591: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlock in tc route query code Cited commit causes ABBA deadlock...

Description

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---

Metrics

CVSS 3.1

5.5/10

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

EPSS Probability

0.12%

2.0th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

CWE-667

Affected Software

Vendor	Product	Versions	Update
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 5.13.17, < 5.14	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 5.14.4, < 5.15.115	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 5.16, < 6.1.31	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 6.2, < 6.3.5	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	6.4	Rc1

References

Timeline

Published: Oct 4, 2025
Last Modified: Jun 17, 2026
Status: Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2023-53591?

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---

How severe is CVE-2023-53591?

CVE-2023-53591 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.12% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

How do I fix CVE-2023-53591?

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.