CVE-2023-52699

MEDIUM
Published May 19, 2024 Modified Apr 4, 2025 CWE-667

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock).

Is your site exposed to CVE-2023-52699?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

CVSS v3.1 Score

5.3
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Weakness Type (CWE)

CWE-667 CWE-667

Affected Products

Vendor Product
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
debian debian_linux

References

Advisories & Patches

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/13b33feb2ebddc2b1aa607f553566b18a4af1d76 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1b4fe801b5bedec2b622ddb18e5c9bf26c63d79f https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/53cb1e52c9db618c08335984d1ca80db220ccf09 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/674c1c4229e743070e09db63a23442950ff000d1 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/89e8524135a3902e7563a5a59b7b5ec1bf4904ac https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a69224223746ab96d43e5db9d22d136827b7e2d3 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fd203d2c671bdee9ab77090ff394d3b71b627927 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/13b33feb2ebddc2b1aa607f553566b18a4af1d76 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1b4fe801b5bedec2b622ddb18e5c9bf26c63d79f https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/53cb1e52c9db618c08335984d1ca80db220ccf09 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/674c1c4229e743070e09db63a23442950ff000d1 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/89e8524135a3902e7563a5a59b7b5ec1bf4904ac https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a69224223746ab96d43e5db9d22d136827b7e2d3 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fd203d2c671bdee9ab77090ff394d3b71b627927

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2023-52699? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.3 (MEDIUM).
How severe is CVE-2023-52699? +
CVE-2023-52699 has a CVSS v3.1 score of 5.3 out of 10, rated MEDIUM. This is a medium-severity vulnerability that should be remediated as part of regular maintenance.
What products are affected by CVE-2023-52699? +
CVE-2023-52699 affects products from debian, linux, specifically: debian_linux, linux_kernel. Check the affected products table above for specific version ranges.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2023-52699? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Related Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-1221

A Zigbee Radio Co-Processor (RCP), which is using SiLabs EmberZNet Zigbee stack, was unable to send messages to the host …
CVE-2025-10151

Improper locking vulnerability in Softing Industrial Automation GmbH gateways allows infected memory and/or resource leak exposure.This issue affects smartLink HW-PN: …
CVE-2026-54906 9.8

concurrent-ruby is a modern concurrency tools for Ruby. Prior to 1.3.7, Concurrent::ReadWriteLock#release_write_lock does not verify that the calling thread acquired …
CVE-2026-43215 8.8

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cifs: Fix locking usage for tcon fields We used to …
CVE-2026-31629 8.8

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfc: llcp: add missing return after LLCP_CLOSED checks In nfc_llcp_recv_hdlc() …
CVE-2026-62426 8.8

[This CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] To manage the …

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2023-52699 — free, no signup required.