CVE-2023-53243 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2023-53243
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
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-2023-53243 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Published on: 15 Sep 2025, 15:15 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2023-53243 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2023-53243: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: add handling for RAID1C23/DUP to btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile Callers of `btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile` expect it to return exactly one allocation profile flag, and failing to do so may ultimately result in a WARN_ON and remount-ro when allocating new blocks, like the below transaction abort on 6.1. `btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile` has two ways of determining the profile, first it checks if a conversion balance is currently running and uses the profile we're converting to. If no balance is currently running, it returns the max-redundancy profile which at least one block in the selected block group has. This works by simply checking each known allocation profile bit in redundancy order. However, `btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile` has not been updated as new flags have been added - first with the `DUP` profile and later with the RAID1C34 profiles. Because of the way it checks, if we have blocks with different profiles and at least one is known, that profile will be selected. However, if none are known we may return a flag set with multiple allocation profiles set. This is currently only possible when a balance from one of the three unhandled profiles to another of the unhandled profiles is canceled after allocating at least one block using the new profile. In that case, a transaction abort like the below will occur and the filesystem will need to be mounted with -o skip_balance to get it mounted rw again (but the balance cannot be resumed without a similar abort). [770.648] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [770.648] BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -22) [770.648] WARNING: CPU: 43 PID: 1159593 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4122 find_free_extent+0x1d94/0x1e00 [btrfs] [770.648] CPU: 43 PID: 1159593 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G W 6.1.0-0.deb11.7-powerpc64le #1 Debian 6.1.20-2~bpo11+1a~test [770.648] Hardware name: T2P9D01 REV 1.00 POWER9 0x4e1202 opal:skiboot-bc106a0 PowerNV [770.648] NIP: c00800000f6784fc LR: c00800000f6784f8 CTR: c000000000d746c0 [770.648] REGS: c000200089afe9a0 TRAP: 0700 Tainted: G W (6.1.0-0.deb11.7-powerpc64le Debian 6.1.20-2~bpo11+1a~test) [770.648] MSR: 9000000002029033 <SF,HV,VEC,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE> CR: 28848282 XER: 20040000 [770.648] CFAR: c000000000135110 IRQMASK: 0 GPR00: c00800000f6784f8 c000200089afec40 c00800000f7ea800 0000000000000026 GPR04: 00000001004820c2 c000200089afea00 c000200089afe9f8 0000000000000027 GPR08: c000200ffbfe7f98 c000000002127f90 ffffffffffffffd8 0000000026d6a6e8 GPR12: 0000000028848282 c000200fff7f3800 5deadbeef0000122 c00000002269d000 GPR16: c0002008c7797c40 c000200089afef17 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 GPR20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 c000200008bc5a98 0000000000000001 GPR24: 0000000000000000 c0000003c73088d0 c000200089afef17 c000000016d3a800 GPR28: c0000003c7308800 c00000002269d000 ffffffffffffffea 0000000000000001 [770.648] NIP [c00800000f6784fc] find_free_extent+0x1d94/0x1e00 [btrfs] [770.648] LR [c00800000f6784f8] find_free_extent+0x1d90/0x1e00 [btrfs] [770.648] Call Trace: [770.648] [c000200089afec40] [c00800000f6784f8] find_free_extent+0x1d90/0x1e00 [btrfs] (unreliable) [770.648] [c000200089afed30] [c00800000f681398] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1a0/0x2f0 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089afeea0] [c00800000f681bf0] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x108/0x670 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089afeff0] [c00800000f66bd68] __btrfs_cow_block+0x170/0x850 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089aff100] [c00800000f66c58c] btrfs_cow_block+0x144/0x288 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089aff1b0] [c00800000f67113c] btrfs_search_slot+0x6b4/0xcb0 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089aff2a0] [c00800000f679f60] lookup_inline_extent_backref+0x128/0x7c0 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089aff3b0] [c00800000f67b338] lookup_extent_backref+0x70/0x190 [btrfs] [770.648] [c000200089aff470] [c00800000f67b54c] __btrfs_free_extent+0xf4/0x1490 [btrfs] [770.648] [ ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2023-53243

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2023-53243 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-2023-53243

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2023-53243.

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-2023-53243, 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-2023-53243, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2023-53243 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2023-53243 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2023-53243 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2023-53243 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2023-53243: 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-2025-62672 – rplay through 3.3.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (SIGSEGV and daemon crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact. This occurs...
  • CVE-2025-47410 – Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tric...
  • CVE-2025-11926 – The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1...
  • CVE-2025-9890 – The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing...
  • CVE-2025-5555 – A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the...