Vulnerability · Published Dec 9, 2025 · Assigned by Linux
CVE-2023-53778accel/qaic: Clean up integer overflow checking in map_user_pages()
High 7.8
In plain English
A high-severity security flaw in Linux from Linux. There are no confirmed reports of exploitation so far. The chance it is exploited in the next 30 days is estimated at 0.1% (higher than 4% of all known vulnerabilities). Fixed versions are available - upgrade the affected package.
Official 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.
Affected packages & fixed versions
| Ecosystem | Package | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:13 | linux | 6.4.13-1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Debian:14 | linux | 6.4.13-1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-allwinner-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-aws-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-aws-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-aws-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-azure-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-azure-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-azure-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-azure-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-azure-fde-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-azure-fde-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-gcp-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-gcp-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-gcp-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-gcp-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-hwe-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-hwe-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-hwe-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-hwe-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-intel-iot-realtime | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-lowlatency-hwe-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-lowlatency-hwe-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-lowlatency-hwe-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-lowlatency-hwe-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-nvidia-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-nvidia-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-nvidia-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-oem-5.17 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-oem-6.0 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-oem-6.1 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-oem-6.11 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-oem-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-oem-6.8 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-oracle-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-raspi-realtime | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-realtime | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-realtime | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-riscv | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-riscv | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-riscv-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:24.04:LTS | linux-riscv-6.14 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-riscv-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-starfive-5.19 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-starfive-6.2 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |
| Ubuntu:22.04:LTS | linux-starfive-6.5 | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2023-53778 |