We use necessary cookies to keep DataHouse.pl working and optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all, reject optional cookies, or configure your choices.

OK, I AGREE I DISAGREE CHANGE THE CONSENTS

Thanks to cookies and similar technologies (hereinafter referred to as "cookies"), we can improve the functionality of our website and display content tailored to your needs and expectations.

For more information on the use of cookies, please see our [Cookie Policy].

I agree to:

Analytical use of cookies

Marketing use of cookies

Use of necessary cookies (always active)

Your preferences regarding cookies, expressed after logging in to the website, will be assigned to your Datahouse.pl account. This ensures that it is also saved if you sign in to your account from another device or browser.

CONFIRM SELECTION CANCEL

CVE-2023-52699: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).

CVE-2023-52699CVSS 5.3Linux

CVE-2023-52699: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).

CVSS: 5.3 MEDIUM
EPSS: 57.45%
Known exploited: not in KEV
Product: linux kernel

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).

Sources

Back to security hub Contact DataHouse