CVE-2023-53233
Linux Kernel 5.8 – 5.10.176
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-53233 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 2th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-59851
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/smc: fix deadlock triggered by cancel_delayed_work_syn() The following LOCKDEP was detected: Workqueue: events smc_lgr_free_work [smc] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.1.0-20221027.rc2.git8.56bc5b569087.300.fc36.s390x+debug #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/3:0/176251 is trying to…
more
acquire lock: 00000000f1467148 ((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_workqueue+0x7a/0x4f0 but task is already holding lock: 0000037fffe97dc8 ((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 ((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248 lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8 __flush_work+0x76/0xf0 __cancel_work_timer+0x170/0x220 __smc_lgr_terminate.part.0+0x34/0x1c0 [smc] smc_connect_rdma+0x15e/0x418 [smc] __smc_connect+0x234/0x480 [smc] smc_connect+0x1d6/0x230 [smc] __sys_connect+0x90/0xc0 __do_sys_socketcall+0x186/0x370 __do_syscall+0x1da/0x208 system_call+0x82/0xb0 -> #3 (smc_client_lgr_pending){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248 lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8 __mutex_lock+0x96/0x8e8 mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40 smc_connect_rdma+0xa4/0x418 [smc] __smc_connect+0x234/0x480 [smc] smc_connect+0x1d6/0x230 [smc] __sys_connect+0x90/0xc0 __do_sys_socketcall+0x186/0x370 __do_syscall+0x1da/0x208 system_call+0x82/0xb0 -> #2 (sk_lock-AF_SMC){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248 lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8 lock_sock_nested+0x46/0xa8 smc_tx_work+0x34/0x50 [smc] process_one_work+0x30c/0x730 worker_thread+0x62/0x420 kthread+0x138/0x150 __ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58 ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40 -> #1 ((work_completion)(&(&smc->conn.tx_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248 lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8 process_one_work+0x2bc/0x730 worker_thread+0x62/0x420 kthread+0x138/0x150 __ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58 ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40 -> #0 ((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2){+.+.}-{0:0}: check_prev_add+0xd8/0xe88 validate_chain+0x70c/0xb20 __lock_acquire+0x58e/0xbd8 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x248 lock_acquire+0xac/0x1c8 __flush_workqueue+0xaa/0x4f0 drain_workqueue+0xaa/0x158 destroy_workqueue+0x44/0x2d8 smc_lgr_free+0x9e/0xf8 [smc] process_one_work+0x30c/0x730 worker_thread+0x62/0x420 kthread+0x138/0x150 __ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58 ret_from_fork+0xa/0x40 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: (wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2 --> smc_client_lgr_pending --> (work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work) Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock((work_completion)(&(&lgr->free_work)->work)); lock(smc_client_lgr_pending); lock((work_completion) (&(&lgr->free_work)->work)); lock((wq_completion)smc_tx_wq-00000000#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by kworker/3:0/176251: #0: 0000000080183548 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730 #1: 0000037fffe97dc8 ((work_completion) (&(&lgr->free_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x232/0x730 stack backtr ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development lifecycle includes concurrency and locking requirements that reduce improper locking defects.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as buffer overflows or SQL injection) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or prevent improper locking from being present or exploitable in the resulting application.
Secure architecture principles address thread-safety and resource synchronization.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit missing or incorrect lock usage.
Security testing can detect race conditions and locking errors before release.
Change management may catch locking issues introduced by modifications but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-667, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.