CVE-2023-53778

CVE-2023-53778 is a security vulnerability that is still awaiting full analysis and scoring. It is not currently listed as actively exploited by CISA, and its EPSS exploit-prediction score is low.

Key facts

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: accel/qaic: Clean up integer overflow checking in map_user_pages() The encode_dma() function has some validation on in_trans->size but it would be more clear to move those checks to find_and_map_user_pages(). The encode_dma() had two checks: if (in_trans->addr + in_trans->size < in_trans->addr || !in_trans->size) return -EINVAL; The in_trans->addr variable is the starting address. The in_trans->size variable is the total size of the transfer. The transfer can occur in parts and the resources->xferred_dma_size tracks how many bytes we have already transferred. This patch introduces a new variable "remaining" which represents the amount we want to transfer (in_trans->size) minus the amount we have already transferred (resources->xferred_dma_size). I have modified the check for if in_trans->size is zero to instead check if in_trans->size is less than resources->xferred_dma_size. If we have already transferred more bytes than in_trans->size then there are negative bytes remaining which doesn't make sense. If there are zero bytes remaining to be copied, just return success. The check in encode_dma() checked that "addr + size" could not overflow and barring a driver bug that should work, but it's easier to check if we do this in parts. First check that "in_trans->addr + resources->xferred_dma_size" is safe. Then check that "xfer_start_addr + remaining" is safe. My final concern was that we are dealing with u64 values but on 32bit systems the kmalloc() function will truncate the sizes to 32 bits. So I calculated "total = in_trans->size + offset_in_page(xfer_start_addr);" and returned -EINVAL if it were >= SIZE_MAX. This will not affect 64bit systems.

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2023-53778?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: accel/qaic: Clean up integer overflow checking in map_user_pages() The encode_dma() function has some validation on in_trans->size but it would be more clear to move those checks to find_and_map_user_pages(). The encode_dma() had two checks: if (in_trans->addr + in_trans->size < in_trans->addr || !in_trans->size) return -EINVAL; The in_trans->addr variable is the starting address. The in_trans->size variable is the total size of the transfer. The transfer can occur in parts and the resources->xferred_dma_size tracks how many bytes we have already transferred. This patch introduces a new variable "remaining" which represents the amount we want to transfer (in_trans->size) minus the amount we have already transferred (resources->xferred_dma_size). I have modified the check for if in_trans->size is zero to instead check if in_trans->size is less than resources->xferred_dma_size. If we have already transferred more bytes than in_trans->size then there are negative bytes remaining which doesn't make sense. If there are zero bytes remaining to be copied, just return success. The check in encode_dma() checked that "addr + size" could not overflow and barring a driver bug that should work, but it's easier to check if we do this in parts. First check that "in_trans->addr + resources->xferred_dma_size" is safe. Then check that "xfer_start_addr + remaining" is safe. My final concern was that we are dealing with u64 values but on 32bit systems the kmalloc() function will truncate the sizes to 32 bits. So I calculated "total = in_trans->size + offset_in_page(xfer_start_addr);" and returned -EINVAL if it were >= SIZE_MAX. This will not affect 64bit systems.
Is CVE-2023-53778 being actively exploited?
It is not currently listed in CISA's KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit-prediction score is 0% (6th percentile), an estimate of the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2023-53778?
Review the linked vendor and NVD advisories for patched versions and mitigations, then upgrade or apply the recommended workaround.
Does CVE-2023-53778 have an EU (EUVD) identifier?
Yes. CVE-2023-53778 is tracked in the ENISA EU Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as EUVD-2023-60128.
When was CVE-2023-53778 published?
CVE-2023-53778 was published on 2025-12-09 and last updated on 2026-06-17.

References