CVE-2023-53778

HIGHPre-NVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2025-12-09. the CNA's CVSS baseline 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: cna:linux, epss, ghsa
7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

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.

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8(medium)
EG Risk
40(Track)
EG Risk 40/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity78% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS PROB
0%
EPSS %ILE
4%
KEV
Not listed

Published

December 9, 2025

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Related CVEs are temporarily unavailable — the same-product, same-vendor and same-CWE lists could not be loaded just now. That is not a sign that none exist; please retry shortly.

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2023-53778?
CVE-2023-53778 is a high vulnerability published on December 9, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: accel/qaic: Clean up integer overflow checking in mapuserpages() The encodedma() function has some validation on intrans->size but it would be more clear to move those checks to findandmapuserpages(). The encode_dma() had two…
When was CVE-2023-53778 disclosed?
CVE-2023-53778 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on December 9, 2025, with the most recent update on August 5, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2023-53778 actively exploited?
CVE-2023-53778 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the top 96.0% of all scored CVEs.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-53778?
CVE-2023-53778 has a CVSS v4.0 base score of 7.8 (CNA self-assessment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2023-53778?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2023-53778, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2023-53778

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-53778?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.