Bug 2401552 (CVE-2023-53553)

Summary: CVE-2023-53553 kernel: HID: hyperv: avoid struct memcpy overrun warning
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security DevOps Team <prodsec-dev>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: unspecifiedKeywords: Security
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
A compiler warning issue was found in the Linux kernel's Hyper-V HID driver that could lead to potential memory safety issues. A local user can trigger this issue when the fortified memcpy implementation detects potential buffer overflows in the mousevsc_on_receive function, where the compiler cannot verify that memory copy operations stay within bounds. This could potentially result in memory corruption and denial of service.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-10-04 16:07:02 UTC
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.