CVE-2023-52934 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2023-52934
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

Attack Complexity:
Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
Attack Vector:
Attack Vector Under Analysis
Privileges Required: None
No authentication is required for exploitation.
Scope:
Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
User Interaction: None
No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2023-52934 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕕 28 Mar 2025, 18:11 UTC
Originally published on: 🕔 27 Mar 2025, 17:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2023-52934 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2023-52934: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/MADV_COLLAPSE: catch !none !huge !bad pmd lookups In commit 34488399fa08 ("mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to MADV_COLLAPSE") we make the following change to find_pmd_or_thp_or_none(): - if (!pmd_present(pmde)) - return SCAN_PMD_NULL; + if (pmd_none(pmde)) + return SCAN_PMD_NONE; This was for-use by MADV_COLLAPSE file/shmem codepaths, where MADV_COLLAPSE might identify a pte-mapped hugepage, only to have khugepaged race-in, free the pte table, and clear the pmd. Such codepaths include: A) If we find a suitably-aligned compound page of order HPAGE_PMD_ORDER already in the pagecache. B) In retract_page_tables(), if we fail to grab mmap_lock for the target mm/address. In these cases, collapse_pte_mapped_thp() really does expect a none (not just !present) pmd, and we want to suitably identify that case separate from the case where no pmd is found, or it's a bad-pmd (of course, many things could happen once we drop mmap_lock, and the pmd could plausibly undergo multiple transitions due to intervening fault, split, etc). Regardless, the code is prepared install a huge-pmd only when the existing pmd entry is either a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd, or the none-pmd. However, the commit introduces a logical hole; namely, that we've allowed !none- && !huge- && !bad-pmds to be classified as genuine pte-table-mapping-pmds. One such example that could leak through are swap entries. The pmd values aren't checked again before use in pte_offset_map_lock(), which is expecting nothing less than a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd. We want to put back the !pmd_present() check (below the pmd_none() check), but need to be careful to deal with subtleties in pmd transitions and treatments by various arch. The issue is that __split_huge_pmd_locked() temporarily clears the present bit (or otherwise marks the entry as invalid), but pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() still need to return true while the pmd is in this transitory state. For example, x86's pmd_present() also checks the _PAGE_PSE , riscv's version also checks the _PAGE_LEAF bit, and arm64 also checks a PMD_PRESENT_INVALID bit. Covering all 4 cases for x86 (all checks done on the same pmd value): 1) pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() All we actually know here is that the PSE bit is set. Either: a) We aren't racing with __split_huge_page(), and PRESENT or PROTNONE is set. => huge-pmd b) We are currently racing with __split_huge_page(). The danger here is that we proceed as-if we have a huge-pmd, but really we are looking at a pte-mapping-pmd. So, what is the risk of this danger? The only relevant path is: madvise_collapse() -> collapse_pte_mapped_thp() Where we might just incorrectly report back "success", when really the memory isn't pmd-backed. This is fine, since split could happen immediately after (actually) successful madvise_collapse(). So, it should be safe to just assume huge-pmd here. 2) pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Either: a) PSE not set and either PRESENT or PROTNONE is. => pte-table-mapping pmd (or PROT_NONE) b) devmap. This routine can be called immediately after unlocking/locking mmap_lock -- or called with no locks held (see khugepaged_scan_mm_slot()), so previous VMA checks have since been invalidated. 3) !pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() Not possible. 4) !pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Neither PRESENT nor PROTNONE set => not present I've checked all archs that implement pmd_trans_huge() (arm64, riscv, powerpc, longarch, x86, mips, s390) and this logic roughly translates (though devmap treatment is unique to x86 and powerpc, and (3) doesn't necessarily hold in general -- but that doesn't matter since !pmd_present() always takes failure path). Also, add a comment above find_pmd_or_thp_or_none() ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2023-52934

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2023-52934 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2023-52934

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2023-52934.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2023-52934, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2023-52934, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2023-52934 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2023-52934 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2023-52934 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2023-52934 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2023-52934: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-4488 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown...
CVE-2025-4487 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. It has been classified as critical. Affected is an unknown function of the fil...
CVE-2025-4486 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the f...
CVE-2025-4485 – A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the...
CVE-2025-4484 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /a...