Homepage

Improper Locking Affecting kernel-modules-core package, versions <0:5.14.0-503.11.1.el9_5

Severity

 Recommended
0.0
medium
0
10

Based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux security rating.

Threat Intelligence

EPSS
0.05% (18th percentile)

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-RHEL9-KERNELMODULESCORE-6517359
  • published3 Apr 2024
  • disclosed2 Apr 2024
Report a new vulnerability Found a mistake?

Introduced: 2 Apr 2024

CVE-2023-52632  (opens in a new tab)
CWE-667  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

Upgrade RHEL:9 kernel-modules-core to version 0:5.14.0-503.11.1.el9_5 or higher.
This issue was patched in RHSA-2024:9315.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-modules-core package and not the kernel-modules-core package as distributed by RHEL. See How to fix? for RHEL:9 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)(&amp;svms-&gt;deferred_list_work));
                    lock(&amp;info-&gt;lock#2);
        lock((work_completion)(&amp;svms-&gt;deferred_list_work));
    sync(srcu);

CVSS Scores

version 3.1