Vulnerability Database

374,345

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2023-53531 — linux / linux_kernel

NULL Pointer Dereference

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

null_blk: fix poll request timeout handling

When doing io_uring benchmark on /dev/nullb0, it's easy to crash the kernel if poll requests timeout triggered, as reported by David. [1]

BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008 Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_timeout_work RIP: 0010:null_timeout_rq+0x4e/0x91 Call Trace: ? null_timeout_rq+0x4e/0x91 blk_mq_handle_expired+0x31/0x4b bt_iter+0x68/0x84 ? bt_tags_iter+0x81/0x81 __sbitmap_for_each_set.constprop.0+0xb0/0xf2 ? __blk_mq_complete_request_remote+0xf/0xf bt_for_each+0x46/0x64 ? __blk_mq_complete_request_remote+0xf/0xf ? percpu_ref_get_many+0xc/0x2a blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter+0x14d/0x18e blk_mq_timeout_work+0x95/0x127 process_one_work+0x185/0x263 worker_thread+0x1b5/0x227

This is indeed a race problem between null_timeout_rq() and null_poll().

null_poll() null_timeout_rq() spin_lock(&nq->poll_lock) list_splice_init(&nq->poll_list, &list) spin_unlock(&nq->poll_lock)

while (!list_empty(&list)) req = list_first_entry() list_del_init() ... blk_mq_add_to_batch() // req->rq_next = NULL spin_lock(&nq->poll_lock)

// rq->queuelist->next == NULL list_del_init(&rq->queuelist) spin_unlock(&nq->poll_lock)

Fix these problems by setting requests state to MQ_RQ_COMPLETE under nq->poll_lock protection, in which null_timeout_rq() can safely detect this race and early return.

Note this patch just fix the kernel panic when request timeout happen.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

  • Published: Oct 1, 2025
  • Updated: Jan 24, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2023-53531
  • Severity: Medium
  • 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.