CVE-2023-53087 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2023-53087
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-2023-53087 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕣 05 May 2025, 20:54 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 02 May 2025, 16:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 3 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2023-53087 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2023-53087: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a number of concurrently running graphics applications. Root cause analysis pointed at an issue in barrier processing code -- a race among perf open / close replacing active barriers with perf requests on kernel context and concurrent barrier preallocate / acquire operations performed during user context first pin / last unpin. When adding a request to a composite tracker, we try to reuse an existing fence tracker, already allocated and registered with that composite. The tracker we obtain may already track another fence, may be an idle barrier, or an active barrier. If the tracker we get occurs a non-idle barrier then we try to delete that barrier from a list of barrier tasks it belongs to. However, while doing that we don't respect return value from a function that performs the barrier deletion. Should the deletion ever fail, we would end up reusing the tracker still registered as a barrier task. Since the same structure field is reused with both fence callback lists and barrier tasks list, list corruptions would likely occur. Barriers are now deleted from a barrier tasks list by temporarily removing the list content, traversing that content with skip over the node to be deleted, then populating the list back with the modified content. Should that intentionally racy concurrent deletion attempts be not serialized, one or more of those may fail because of the list being temporary empty. Related code that ignores the results of barrier deletion was initially introduced in v5.4 by commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"). However, all users of the barrier deletion routine were apparently serialized at that time, then the issue didn't exhibit itself. Results of git bisect with help of a newly developed igt@gem_barrier_race@remote-request IGT test indicate that list corruptions might start to appear after commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), introduced in v5.5. Respect results of barrier deletion attempts -- mark the barrier as idle only if successfully deleted from the list. Then, before proceeding with setting our fence as the one currently tracked, make sure that the tracker we've got is not a non-idle barrier. If that check fails then don't use that tracker but go back and try to acquire a new, usable one. v3: use unlikely() to document what outcome we expect (Andi), - fix bad grammar in commit description. v2: no code changes, - blame commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), v5.5, not commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"), v5.4, - reword commit description. (cherry picked from commit 506006055769b10d1b2b4e22f636f3b45e0e9fc7)

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2023-53087

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2023-53087 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-2023-53087

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2023-53087.

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-2023-53087, 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-2023-53087, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2023-53087 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2023-53087 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2023-53087 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2023-53087 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2023-53087: 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...