Vulnerability Database

374,078

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2023-53311 — linux / linux_kernel

Use After Free

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

nilfs2: fix use-after-free of nilfs_root in dirtying inodes via iput

During unmount process of nilfs2, nothing holds nilfs_root structure after nilfs2 detaches its writer in nilfs_detach_log_writer(). Previously, nilfs_evict_inode() could cause use-after-free read for nilfs_root if inodes are left in "garbage_list" and released by nilfs_dispose_list at the end of nilfs_detach_log_writer(), and this bug was fixed by commit 9b5a04ac3ad9 ("nilfs2: fix use-after-free bug of nilfs_root in nilfs_evict_inode()").

However, it turned out that there is another possibility of UAF in the call path where mark_inode_dirty_sync() is called from iput():

nilfs_detach_log_writer() nilfs_dispose_list() iput() mark_inode_dirty_sync() __mark_inode_dirty() nilfs_dirty_inode() __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty() nilfs_load_inode_block() --> causes UAF of nilfs_root struct

This can happen after commit 0ae45f63d4ef ("vfs: add support for a lazytime mount option"), which changed iput() to call mark_inode_dirty_sync() on its final reference if i_state has I_DIRTY_TIME flag and i_nlink is non-zero.

This issue appears after commit 28a65b49eb53 ("nilfs2: do not write dirty data after degenerating to read-only") when using the syzbot reproducer, but the issue has potentially existed before.

Fix this issue by adding a "purging flag" to the nilfs structure, setting that flag while disposing the "garbage_list" and checking it in __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty().

Unlike commit 9b5a04ac3ad9 ("nilfs2: fix use-after-free bug of nilfs_root in nilfs_evict_inode()"), this patch does not rely on ns_writer to determine whether to skip operations, so as not to break recovery on mount. The nilfs_salvage_orphan_logs routine dirties the buffer of salvaged data before attaching the log writer, so changing __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty() to skip the operation when ns_writer is NULL will cause recovery write to fail. The purpose of using the cleanup-only flag is to allow for narrowing of such conditions.

  • Published: Sep 16, 2025
  • Updated: Dec 2, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2023-53311
  • Severity: High
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: High
  • Score: 7.8
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CWEs:

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.