fkie_cve-2023-53553
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2025-10-04 16:15
Modified
2025-10-06 14:56
Severity ?
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.
References
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5f151364b1da6bd217632fd4ee8cc24eaf66a497
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a7902cc5f5b9c95997017c8e309da760fb1deb6e
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version


To clipboard 

{
  "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": "2025-10-06T14:56:21.733",
  "metrics": {},
  "published": "2025-10-04T16:15:50.590",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5f151364b1da6bd217632fd4ee8cc24eaf66a497"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a7902cc5f5b9c95997017c8e309da760fb1deb6e"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.