Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Make...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Make bpf_refcount_acquire fallible for non-owning refs
This patch fixes an incorrect assumption made in the original
bpf_refcount series 0, specifically that the BPF program calling
bpf_refcount_acquire on some node can always guarantee that the node is
alive. In that series, the patch adding failure behavior to rbtree_add
and list_push_{front, back} breaks this assumption for non-owning
references.
Consider the following program:
n = bpf_kptr_xchg(&mapval, NULL);
/* skip error checking */
bpf_spin_lock(&l);
if(bpf_rbtree_add(&t, &n->rb, less)) {
bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
/* Failed to add, do something else with the node */
}
bpf_spin_unlock(&l);
It's incorrect to assume that bpf_refcount_acquire will always succeed in this
scenario. bpf_refcount_acquire is being called in a critical section
here, but the lock being held is associated with rbtree t, which isn't
necessarily the lock associated with the tree that the node is already
in. So after bpf_rbtree_add fails to add the node and calls bpf_obj_drop
in it, the program has no ownership of the node's lifetime. Therefore
the node's refcount can be decr'd to 0 at any time after the failing
rbtree_add. If this happens before the refcount_acquire above, the node
might be free'd, and regardless refcount_acquire will be incrementing a
0 refcount.
Later patches in the series exercise this scenario, resulting in the
expected complaint from the kernel (without this patch's changes):
refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 207 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xbc/0x110
Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(O)
CPU: 1 PID: 207 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G O 6.3.0-rc7-02231-g723de1a718a2-dirty #371
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.15.0-0-g2dd4b9b3f840-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0xbc/0x110
Code: 6f 64 f6 02 01 e8 84 a3 5c ff 0f 0b eb 9d 80 3d 5e 64 f6 02 00 75 94 48 c7 c7 e0 13 d2 82 c6 05 4e 64 f6 02 01 e8 64 a3 5c ff <0f> 0b e9 7a ff ff ff 80 3d 38 64 f6 02 00 0f 85 6d ff ff ff 48 c7
RSP: 0018:ffff88810b9179b0 EFLAGS: 00010082
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000202 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: ffffffff857c3680
RBP: ffff88810027d3c0 R08: ffffffff8125f2a4 R09: ffff88810b9176e7
R10: ffffed1021722edc R11: 746e756f63666572 R12: ffff88810027d388
R13: ffff88810027d3c0 R14: ffffc900005fe030 R15: ffffc900005fe048
FS: 00007fee0584a700(0000) GS:ffff88811b280000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00005634a96f6c58 CR3: 0000000108ce9002 CR4: 0000000000770ee0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
bpf_refcount_acquire_impl+0xb5/0xc0
(rest of output snipped)
The patch addresses this by changing bpf_refcount_acquire_impl to use
refcount_inc_not_zero instead of refcount_inc and marking
bpf_refcount_acquire KF_RET_NULL.
For owning references, though, we know the above scenario is not possible
and thus that bpf_refcount_acquire will always succeed. Some verifier
bookkeeping is added to track "is input owning ref?" for bpf_refcount_acquire
calls and return false from is_kfunc_ret_null for bpf_refcount_acquire on
owning refs despite it being marked KF_RET_NULL.
Existing selftests using bpf_refcount_acquire are modified where
necessary to NULL-check its return value.
Impact
Memory is accessed after it has been freed, leading to undefined behavior in native code. Typical impact: memory corruption, crash, or potential code execution.
CVE-2023-53645 has a CVSS score of 7.8 (High). 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-2023-53645? CVE-2023-53645 is a high-severity use after free vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet. Memory is accessed after it has been freed, leading to undefined behavior in native code.
- How severe is CVE-2023-53645? CVE-2023-53645 has a CVSS score of 7.8 (High). 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-2023-53645? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2023-53645 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2023-53645 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2023-53645 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-2023-53645 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.