CVE-2023-52562

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The CVE Program describes this issue as:

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/slab_common: fix slab_caches list corruption after kmem_cache_destroy() After the commit in Fixes:, if a module that created a slab cache does not release all of its allocated objects before destroying the cache (at rmmod time), we might end up releasing the kmem_cache object without removing it from the slab_caches list thus corrupting the list as kmem_cache_destroy() ignores the return value from shutdown_cache(), which in turn never removes the kmem_cache object from slabs_list in case __kmem_cache_shutdown() fails to release all of the cache's slabs. This is easily observable on a kernel built with CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST=y as after that ill release the system will immediately trip on list_add, or list_del, assertions similar to the one shown below as soon as another kmem_cache gets created, or destroyed: [ 1041.213632] list_del corruption. next->prev should be ffff89f596fb5768, but was 52f1e5016aeee75d. (next=ffff89f595a1b268) [ 1041.219165] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 1041.221517] kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:62! [ 1041.223452] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI [ 1041.225408] CPU: 2 PID: 1852 Comm: rmmod Kdump: loaded Tainted: G B W OE 6.5.0 #15 [ 1041.228244] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS edk2-20230524-3.fc37 05/24/2023 [ 1041.231212] RIP: 0010:__list_del_entry_valid+0xae/0xb0 Another quick way to trigger this issue, in a kernel with CONFIG_SLUB=y, is to set slub_debug to poison the released objects and then just run cat /proc/slabinfo after removing the module that leaks slab objects, in which case the kernel will panic: [ 50.954843] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xa56b6b6b6b6b6b8b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI [ 50.961545] CPU: 2 PID: 1495 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Tainted: G B W OE 6.5.0 #15 [ 50.966808] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS edk2-20230524-3.fc37 05/24/2023 [ 50.972663] RIP: 0010:get_slabinfo+0x42/0xf0 This patch fixes this issue by properly checking shutdown_cache()'s return value before taking the kmem_cache_release() branch.

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 2267737: kernel: mm/slab_common: slab_caches list corruption after kmem_cache_destroy()
  • CWE-401: Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2023-52562

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
Red HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

5.5

5.5

Attack Vector

Local

Local

Attack Complexity

Low

Low

Privileges Required

Low

Low

User Interaction

None

None

Scope

Unchanged

Unchanged

Confidentiality Impact

None

None

Integrity Impact

None

None

Availability Impact

High

High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.