CVE-2023-53591

net/mlx5e: Fix deadlock in tc route query code

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: October 4, 2025 at 03:44 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 06:45 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.1%

Description

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---

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v ≥ 5.13.17v ≥ 5.14.45.13.17 ≤ v < 5.145.14.4 ≤ v < 5.155.14.4 ≤ v < 5.15.1155.15 ≤ v < 5.15.1155.15 ≤ v < 6.1.315.15 ≤ v < 6.3.55.15 ≤ v < 6.45.16 ≤ v < 6.1.316.2 ≤ v < 6.3.55.13.175.14.45.156.4 rc16.4 rc26.4 rc37778fe1a6a6c069a460e4e3ff8ed3722392a4b5b87a0625cf1c76caeaa15c576a0b2fcad4b9387d0f9d196bd632b8b79261ec3366c30ec3923ea9a02
Vendor states this is fixed in 362063df6ceec80b0b6798b61ae03504dcc125a5 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 691c041bf20899fc13c793f92ba61ab660fa3a30 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 69966bce28da6aadccfd968b75d128a79da32d17 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in a7236e420a7d8082b1df4b3e05c739dd2642a662 (fixed)
Affected range stops below 5.14, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15.115 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.31 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.3.5 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.4 (unaffected)

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-667

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card