Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

Unreviewed Published Sep 15, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Sep 15, 2025

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

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---

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 15, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 15, 2025
Last updated Sep 15, 2025

Severity

Unknown

EPSS score

Weaknesses

No CWEs

CVE ID

CVE-2023-53233

GHSA ID

GHSA-r95c-h52x-x56p

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.