Improper Locking Affecting kernel-abi-whitelists package, versions *
Threat Intelligence
The probability is the direct output of the EPSS model, and conveys an overall sense of the threat of exploitation in the wild. The percentile measures the EPSS probability relative to all known EPSS scores. Note: This data is updated daily, relying on the latest available EPSS model version. Check out the EPSS documentation for more details.
Do your applications use this vulnerable package?
In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.
Test your applications- Snyk IDSNYK-CENTOS7-KERNELABIWHITELISTS-6521822
- published3 Apr 2024
- disclosed2 Apr 2024
Introduced: 2 Apr 2024
CVE-2023-52632 (opens in a new tab)How to fix?
There is no fixed version for Centos:7 kernel-abi-whitelists.
NVD Description
Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-abi-whitelists package and not the kernel-abi-whitelists package as distributed by Centos.
See How to fix? for Centos:7 relevant fixed versions and status.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning with srcu
====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.5.0-kfd-yangp #2289 Not tainted
kworker/0:2/996 is trying to acquire lock: (srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: __synchronize_srcu+0x5/0x1a0
but task is already holding lock: ((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x211/0x560
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 ((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __flush_work+0x88/0x4f0 svm_range_list_lock_and_flush_work+0x3d/0x110 [amdgpu] svm_range_set_attr+0xd6/0x14c0 [amdgpu] kfd_ioctl+0x1d1/0x630 [amdgpu] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
-> #2 (&info->lock#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x99/0xc70 amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm_restore_process_bos+0x54/0x740 [amdgpu] restore_process_helper+0x22/0x80 [amdgpu] restore_process_worker+0x2d/0xa0 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x29b/0x560 worker_thread+0x3d/0x3d0
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&(&process->restore_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __flush_work+0x88/0x4f0 __cancel_work_timer+0x12c/0x1c0 kfd_process_notifier_release_internal+0x37/0x1f0 [amdgpu] __mmu_notifier_release+0xad/0x240 exit_mmap+0x6a/0x3a0 mmput+0x6a/0x120 do_exit+0x322/0xb90 do_group_exit+0x37/0xa0 __x64_sys_exit_group+0x18/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x80
-> #0 (srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x1521/0x2510 lock_sync+0x5f/0x90 __synchronize_srcu+0x4f/0x1a0 __mmu_notifier_release+0x128/0x240 exit_mmap+0x6a/0x3a0 mmput+0x6a/0x120 svm_range_deferred_list_work+0x19f/0x350 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x29b/0x560 worker_thread+0x3d/0x3d0
other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: srcu --> &info->lock#2 --> (work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work));
lock(&info->lock#2);
lock((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work));
sync(srcu);
References
- https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-52632
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1556c242e64cdffe58736aa650b0b395854fe4d4
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2a9de42e8d3c82c6990d226198602be44f43f340
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/752312f6a79440086ac0f9b08d7776870037323c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b602f098f716723fa5c6c96a486e0afba83b7b94