CVE-2023-53591

[CVE catalog]

Severity

Medium · CVSS 5.5CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Published

Jan 1, 2023, 12:00:00 AM UTC

Source

[NVD] · [CVE record]

EPSS

0.13% · Oct 25, 2026

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlock in tc route query code Cited commit causes ABBA deadlock[0] when peer flows are created while holding the devcom rw semaphore. Due to peer flows offload implementation the lock is taken much higher up the call chain and there is no obvious way to easily fix the deadlock. Instead, since tc route query code needs the peer eswitch structure only to perform a lookup in xarray and doesn't perform any sleeping operations with it, refactor the code for lockless execution in following ways: - RCUify the devcom 'data' pointer. When resetting the pointer synchronously wait for RCU grace period before returning. This is fine since devcom is currently only used for synchronization of pairing/unpairing of eswitches which is rare and already expensive as-is. - Wrap all usages of 'paired' boolean in {READ|WRITE}_ONCE(). The flag has already been used in some unlocked contexts without proper annotations (e.g. users of mlx5_devcom_is_paired() function), but it wasn't an issue since all relevant code paths checked it again after obtaining the devcom semaphore. Now it is also used by mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() as "best effort" check to return NULL when devcom is being unpaired. Note that while RCU read lock doesn't prevent the unpaired flag from being changed concurrently it still guarantees that reader can continue to use 'data'. - Refactor mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport() function to use new mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() API which fixes the deadlock. [0]: [ 164.599612] ====================================================== [ 164.600142] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 164.600667] 6.3.0-rc3+ #1 Not tainted [ 164.601021] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 164.601557] handler1/3456 is trying to acquire lock: [ 164.601998] ffff88811f1714b0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.603078] but task is already holding lock: [ 164.603617] ffff88810137fc98 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core] [ 164.604459] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 164.605190] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 164.605848] -> #1 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}: [ 164.606380] down_read+0x39/0x50 [ 164.606772] mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core] [ 164.607336] mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport+0x86/0xc0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.607914] mlx5e_tc_tun_route_lookup+0x1a4/0x1d0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.608495] mlx5e_attach_decap_route+0xc6/0x1e0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.609063] mlx5e_tc_add_fdb_flow+0x1ea/0x360 [mlx5_core] [ 164.609627] __mlx5e_add_fdb_flow+0x2d2/0x430 [mlx5_core] [ 164.610175] mlx5e_configure_flower+0x952/0x1a20 [mlx5_core] [ 164.610741] tc_setup_cb_add+0xd4/0x200 [ 164.611146] fl_hw_replace_filter+0x14c/0x1f0 [cls_flower] [ 164.611661] fl_change+0xc95/0x18a0 [cls_flower] [ 164.612116] tc_new_tfilter+0x3fc/0xd20 [ 164.612516] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x418/0x5b0 [ 164.612936] netlink_rcv_skb+0x54/0x100 [ 164.613339] netlink_unicast+0x190/0x250 [ 164.613746] netlink_sendmsg+0x245/0x4a0 [ 164.614150] sock_sendmsg+0x38/0x60 [ 164.614522] ____sys_sendmsg+0x1d0/0x1e0 [ 164.614934] ___sys_sendmsg+0x80/0xc0 [ 164.615320] __sys_sendmsg+0x51/0x90 [ 164.615701] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 [ 164.616083] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 [ 164.616568] -> #0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 164.617210] __lock_acquire+0x159e/0x26e0 [ 164.617638] lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2a0 [ 164.618018] __mutex_lock+0x92/0xcd0 [ 164.618401] mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core] [ 164.618943] post_process_attr+0x153/0x2d0 [ ---truncated---