CVE-2023-53585 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign
The semantics for bpf_sk_assign are as follows:
sk = some_lookup_func()
bpf_sk_assign(skb, sk)
bpf_sk_release(sk)
That is, the sk is not consumed by bpf_sk_assign. The function therefore needs to make sure that sk lives long enough to be consumed from __inet_lookup_skb. The path through the stack for a TCPv4 packet is roughly:
netif_receive_skb_core: takes RCU read lock __netif_receive_skb_core: sch_handle_ingress: tcf_classify: bpf_sk_assign() deliver_ptype_list_skb: deliver_skb: ip_packet_type->func == ip_rcv: ip_rcv_core: ip_rcv_finish_core: dst_input: ip_local_deliver: ip_local_deliver_finish: ip_protocol_deliver_rcu: tcp_v4_rcv: __inet_lookup_skb: skb_steal_sock
The existing helper takes advantage of the fact that everything happens in the same RCU critical section: for sockets with SOCK_RCU_FREE set bpf_sk_assign never takes a reference. skb_steal_sock then checks SOCK_RCU_FREE again and does sock_put if necessary.
This approach assumes that SOCK_RCU_FREE is never set on a sk between bpf_sk_assign and skb_steal_sock, but this invariant is violated by unhashed UDP sockets. A new UDP socket is created in TCP_CLOSE state but without SOCK_RCU_FREE set. That flag is only added in udp_lib_get_port() which happens when a socket is bound.
When bpf_sk_assign was added it wasn't possible to access unhashed UDP sockets from BPF, so this wasn't a problem. This changed in commit 0c48eefae712 ("sock_map: Lift socket state restriction for datagram sockets"), but the helper wasn't adjusted accordingly. The following sequence of events will therefore lead to a refcount leak:
- Add socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) to a sockmap.
- Pull socket out of sockmap and bpf_sk_assign it. Since SOCK_RCU_FREE is not set we increment the refcount.
- bind() or connect() the socket, setting SOCK_RCU_FREE.
- skb_steal_sock will now set refcounted = false due to SOCK_RCU_FREE.
- tcp_v4_rcv() skips sock_put().
Fix the problem by rejecting unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign(). This matches the behaviour of __inet_lookup_skb which is ultimately the goal of bpf_sk_assign().
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.7 | 5.10.195 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.132 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.53 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.4.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.5 | 6.5.3 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3d4522f59fb748a54446846522941a4f09da63e9
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/67312adc96b5a585970d03b62412847afe2c6b01
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/791a12102e5191dcb6ce0b3a99d71b5a2802d12a
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7dcbc0bb0e5cc1823923744befce59ac353135e6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8aa43cfbb68b25119d2ced14ec717173e2901fa2
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c0ce0fb76610d5fad31f56f2ca8241a2a6717a1b
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.