CVE-2023-52910
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/iova: Fix alloc iova overflows issue In __alloc_and_insert_iova_range, there is an issue that retry_pfn overflows. The value of iovad->anchor.pfn_hi is ~0UL, then when iovad->cached_node is iovad->anchor, curr_iova->pfn_hi + 1 will overflow. As a result, if the retry logic is executed, low_pfn is updated to 0, and then new_pfn < low_pfn returns false to make the allocation successful. This issue occurs in the following two situations: 1. The first iova size exceeds the domain size. When initializing iova domain, iovad->cached_node is assigned as iovad->anchor. For example, the iova domain size is 10M, start_pfn is 0x1_F000_0000, and the iova size allocated for the first time is 11M. The following is the log information, new->pfn_lo is smaller than iovad->cached_node. Example log as follows: [ 223.798112][T1705487] sh: [name:iova&]__alloc_and_insert_iova_range start_pfn:0x1f0000,retry_pfn:0x0,size:0xb00,limit_pfn:0x1f0a00 [ 223.799590][T1705487] sh: [name:iova&]__alloc_and_insert_iova_range success start_pfn:0x1f0000,new->pfn_lo:0x1efe00,new->pfn_hi:0x1f08ff 2. The node with the largest iova->pfn_lo value in the iova domain is deleted, iovad->cached_node will be updated to iovad->anchor, and then the alloc iova size exceeds the maximum iova size that can be allocated in the domain. After judging that retry_pfn is less than limit_pfn, call retry_pfn+1 to fix the overflow issue.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 5.11, < 5.15.89>= 5.16, < 6.1.7= 6.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.15.896.1.7
Kernel version >= 5.15.89, >= 6.1.7, or >= 6.3 (depending on which branch you're on)
- Identify the currently running kernel version using 'uname -r' or 'cat /proc/version'
- Check if the kernel version matches one of the affected ranges: >= 5.11 and < 5.15.89, >= 5.16 and < 6.1.7, or = 6.2
- If affected, plan for a system reboot after applying the kernel update
- For systems running 5.11 <= version < 5.15.89: upgrade kernel to version 5.15.89 or later
- For systems running 5.16 <= version < 6.1.7: upgrade kernel to version 6.1.7 or later
- For systems running version 6.2: upgrade kernel to version 6.3 or later (6.2 is end-of-life)
- Apply the kernel update via package manager (e.g., apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, yum update, or dnf update)
- Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-52910 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-52910 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data