🛡️ CVE-2023-53233 on Debian — linux

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 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---