Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/smc: fix deadlock...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: fix deadlock triggered by cancel_delayed_work_syn()
The following LOCKDEP was detected:
Workqueue: events smc_lgr_free_work [smc]
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.1.0-20221027.rc2.git8.56bc5b569087.300.fc36.s390x+debug #1 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kworker/3:0/176251 is trying to acquire lock:
00000000f1467148 ((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2){+.+.}-{0:0},
at: __flush_workqueue+0x7a/0x4f0
but task is already holding lock:
0000037fffe97dc8 ((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0},
at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #4 ((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8
lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248
lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8
__flush_work+0x76/0xf0
__cancel_work_timer+0x170/0x220
__smc_lgr_terminate.part.0+0x34/0x1c0 [smc]
smc_connect_rdma+0x15e/0x418 [smc]
__smc_connect+0x234/0x480 [smc]
smc_connect+0x1d6/0x230 [smc]
__sys_connect+0x90/0xc0
__do_sys_socketcall+0x186/0x370
__do_syscall+0x1da/0x208
system_call+0x82/0xb0
-> #3 (smc_client_lgr_pending){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8
lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248
lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8
__mutex_lock+0x96/0x8e8
mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40
smc_connect_rdma+0xa4/0x418 [smc]
__smc_connect+0x234/0x480 [smc]
smc_connect+0x1d6/0x230 [smc]
__sys_connect+0x90/0xc0
__do_sys_socketcall+0x186/0x370
__do_syscall+0x1da/0x208
system_call+0x82/0xb0
-> #2 (sk_lock-AF_SMC){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8
lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248
lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8
lock_sock_nested+0x46/0xa8
smc_tx_work+0x34/0x50 [smc]
process_one_work+0x30c/0x730
worker_thread+0x62/0x420
kthread+0x138/0x150
__ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58
ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&(&smc->conn.tx_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8
lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248
lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8
process_one_work+0x2bc/0x730
worker_thread+0x62/0x420
kthread+0x138/0x150
__ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58
ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40
-> #0 ((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2){+.+.}-{0:0}:
check_prev_add+0xd8/0xe88
validate_chain+0x70c/0xb20
__lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8
lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248
lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8
__flush_workqueue+0xaa/0x4f0
drain_workqueue+0xaa/0x158
destroy_workqueue+0x44/0x2d8
smc_lgr_free+0x9e/0xf8 [smc]
process_one_work+0x30c/0x730
worker_thread+0x62/0x420
kthread+0x138/0x150
__ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58
ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
(wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2
--> smc_client_lgr_pending
--> (work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work));
lock(smc_client_lgr_pending);
lock((work_completion)
(&(&lgr->free_work)->work));
lock((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by kworker/3:0/176251:
#0: 0000000080183548
((wq_completion)events){+.+.}-{0:0},
at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730
#1: 0000037fffe97dc8
((work_completion)
(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0},
at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730
stack backtr
---truncated---
Impact
CVE-2023-53233 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). The vector is requires local access, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. No fixed version is listed yet, so configuration controls and monitoring matter more in the interim.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2023-53233? CVE-2023-53233 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2023-53233? CVE-2023-53233 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2023-53233? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2023-53233 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2023-53233 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2023-53233 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2023-53233 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.