FKIE_CVE-2023-53553

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-10-04 16:15 - Updated: 2026-02-12 15:54
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: hyperv: avoid struct memcpy overrun warning A previous patch addressed the fortified memcpy warning for most builds, but I still see this one with gcc-9: In file included from include/linux/string.h:254, from drivers/hid/hid-hyperv.c:8: In function 'fortify_memcpy_chk', inlined from 'mousevsc_on_receive' at drivers/hid/hid-hyperv.c:272:3: include/linux/fortify-string.h:583:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror=attribute-warning] 583 | __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My guess is that the WARN_ON() itself is what confuses gcc, so it no longer sees that there is a correct range check. Rework the code in a way that helps readability and avoids the warning.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
linux linux_kernel *
linux linux_kernel 6.5

{
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "923F6AEA-C2EF-4B08-B038-69A18F3D41F8",
              "versionEndExcluding": "6.4.5",
              "versionStartIncluding": "6.2",
              "vulnerable": true
            },
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.5:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "0B3E6E4D-E24E-4630-B00C-8C9901C597B0",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nHID: hyperv: avoid struct memcpy overrun warning\n\nA previous patch addressed the fortified memcpy warning for most\nbuilds, but I still see this one with gcc-9:\n\nIn file included from include/linux/string.h:254,\n                 from drivers/hid/hid-hyperv.c:8:\nIn function \u0027fortify_memcpy_chk\u0027,\n    inlined from \u0027mousevsc_on_receive\u0027 at drivers/hid/hid-hyperv.c:272:3:\ninclude/linux/fortify-string.h:583:4: error: call to \u0027__write_overflow_field\u0027 declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror=attribute-warning]\n  583 |    __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);\n      |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nMy guess is that the WARN_ON() itself is what confuses gcc, so it no\nlonger sees that there is a correct range check. Rework the code in a\nway that helps readability and avoids the warning."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2023-53553",
  "lastModified": "2026-02-12T15:54:47.367",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "LOCAL",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 5.5,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "NONE",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
        "impactScore": 3.6,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2025-10-04T16:15:50.590",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5f151364b1da6bd217632fd4ee8cc24eaf66a497"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a7902cc5f5b9c95997017c8e309da760fb1deb6e"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "NVD-CWE-noinfo"
        }
      ],
      "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
      "type": "Primary"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…