Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: fix clearuserrep_good...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86: fix clear_user_rep_good() exception handling annotation
This code no longer exists in mainline, because it was removed in
commit d2c95f9d6802 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory
clearing") upstream.
However, rather than backport the full range of x86 memory clearing and
copying cleanups, fix the exception table annotation placement for the
final 'rep movsb' in clear_user_rep_good(): rather than pointing at the
actual instruction that did the user space access, it pointed to the
register move just before it.
That made sense from a code flow standpoint, but not from an actual
usage standpoint: it means that if user access takes an exception, the
exception handler won't actually find the instruction in the exception
tables.
As a result, rather than fixing it up and returning -EFAULT, it would
then turn it into a kernel oops report instead, something like:
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000020081000
#PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
#PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
...
RIP: 0010:clear_user_rep_good+0x1c/0x30 arch/x86/lib/clear_page_64.S:147
...
Call Trace:
__clear_user arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:103 [inline]
clear_user arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:124 [inline]
iov_iter_zero+0x709/0x1290 lib/iov_iter.c:800
iomap_dio_hole_iter fs/iomap/direct-io.c:389 [inline]
iomap_dio_iter fs/iomap/direct-io.c:440 [inline]
__iomap_dio_rw+0xe3d/0x1cd0 fs/iomap/direct-io.c:601
iomap_dio_rw+0x40/0xa0 fs/iomap/direct-io.c:689
ext4_dio_read_iter fs/ext4/file.c:94 [inline]
ext4_file_read_iter+0x4be/0x690 fs/ext4/file.c:145
call_read_iter include/linux/fs.h:2183 [inline]
do_iter_readv_writev+0x2e0/0x3b0 fs/read_write.c:733
do_iter_read+0x2f2/0x750 fs/read_write.c:796
vfs_readv+0xe5/0x150 fs/read_write.c:916
do_preadv+0x1b6/0x270 fs/read_write.c:1008
__do_sys_preadv2 fs/read_write.c:1070 [inline]
__se_sys_preadv2 fs/read_write.c:1061 [inline]
__x64_sys_preadv2+0xef/0x150 fs/read_write.c:1061
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x39/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
which then looks like a filesystem bug rather than the incorrect
exception annotation that it is.
[ The alternative to this one-liner fix is to take the upstream series
that cleans this all up:
68674f94ffc9 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for small memory copies")
20f3337d350c ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for small memory clearing")
adfcf4231b8c ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory copies")
- d2c95f9d6802 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory clearing")
3639a535587d ("x86: move stac/clac from user copy routines into callers")
577e6a7fd50d ("x86: inline the 'rep movs' in user copies for the FSRM case")
8c9b6a88b7e2 ("x86: improve on the non-rep 'clear_user' function")
427fda2c8a49 ("x86: improve on the non-rep 'copy_user' function") - e046fe5a36a9 ("x86: set FSRS automatically on AMD CPUs that have FSRM")
e1f2750edc4a ("x86: remove 'zerorest' argument from __copy_user_nocache()")
034ff37d3407 ("x86: rewrite '__copy_user_nocache' function")
with either the whole series or at a minimum the two marked commits
being needed to fix this issue ]
Impact
CVE-2023-53642 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-2023-53642? CVE-2023-53642 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2023-53642? CVE-2023-53642 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-2023-53642? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2023-53642 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2023-53642 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2023-53642 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-2023-53642 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.