CVE-2023-53233 — linux / linux_kernel
Improper LockingIn 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---
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.8 | 5.10.176 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.104 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.21 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.2.8 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.3-rc1 | 6.3-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.3-rc2 | 6.3-rc2.x |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/13085e1b5cab8ad802904d72e6a6dae85ae0cd20
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3517584cf1b35bd02f4a90267ddf9dcf17bd9c87
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9708efad9ba5095b9bb7916e11a135b3bd66c071
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b615238e5bc01e13dc0610febddc1ca99bab1df6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c9ca2257150272df1b8d9ebe5059197ffea6e913
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.