dbcve.org
VulnerabilityAwaiting classification

CVE-2023-54223

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-12-30
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: xsk: Fix invalid buffer access for legacy rq The below crash can be encountered when using xdpsock in rx mode for legacy rq: the buffer gets released in the XDP_REDIRECT path, and then once again in the driver. This fix sets the flag to avoid releasing on the driver side. XSK handling of buffers for legacy rq was relying on the caller to set the skip release flag. But the referenced fix started using fragment counts for pages instead of the skip flag. Crash log: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xffff8881217e3a: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 0 PID: 14 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc1+ #31 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.13.0-0-gf21b5a4aeb02-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:bpf_prog_03b13f331978c78c+0xf/0x28 Code: ... RSP: 0018:ffff88810082fc98 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff888138404901 RCX: c0ffffc900027cbc RDX: ffffffffa000b514 RSI: 00ffff8881217e32 RDI: ffff888138404901 RBP: ffff88810082fc98 R08: 0000000000091100 R09: 0000000000000006 R10: 0000000000000800 R11: 0000000000000800 R12: ffffc9000027a000 R13: ffff8881217e2dc0 R14: ffff8881217e2910 R15: ffff8881217e2f00 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88852c800000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000564cb2e2cde0 CR3: 000000010e603004 CR4: 0000000000370eb0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? die_addr+0x32/0x80 ? exc_general_protection+0x192/0x390 ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x22/0x30 ? 0xffffffffa000b514 ? bpf_prog_03b13f331978c78c+0xf/0x28 mlx5e_xdp_handle+0x48/0x670 [mlx5_core] ? dev_gro_receive+0x3b5/0x6e0 mlx5e_xsk_skb_from_cqe_linear+0x6e/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_handle_rx_cqe+0x55/0x100 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_poll_rx_cq+0x87/0x6e0 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_napi_poll+0x45e/0x6b0 [mlx5_core] __napi_poll+0x25/0x1a0 net_rx_action+0x28a/0x300 __do_softirq+0xcd/0x279 ? sort_range+0x20/0x20 run_ksoftirqd+0x1a/0x20 smpboot_thread_fn+0xa2/0x130 kthread+0xc9/0xf0 ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 </TASK> Modules linked in: mlx5_ib mlx5_core rpcrdma rdma_ucm ib_iser libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi ib_umad rdma_cm ib_ipoib iw_cm ib_cm ib_uverbs ib_core xt_conntrack xt_MASQUERADE nf_conntrack_netlink nfnetlink xt_addrtype iptable_nat nf_nat br_netfilter overlay zram zsmalloc fuse [last unloaded: mlx5_core] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

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 analysis

A detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.

CVSS 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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

From vendor data
No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $2,300. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-54223 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-54223 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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