CVE-2022-49700

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/slub: add missing TID updates on slab deactivation The fastpath in slab_alloc_node() assumes that c->slab is stable as long as the TID stays the same. However, two places in __slab_alloc() currently don't update the TID when deactivating the CPU slab. If multiple operations race the right way, this could lead to an object getting lost; or, in an even more unlikely situation, it could even lead to an object being freed onto the wrong slab's freelist, messing up the `inuse` counter and eventually causing a page to be freed to the page allocator while it still contains slab objects. (I haven't actually tested these cases though, this is just based on looking at the code. Writing testcases for this stuff seems like it'd be a pain...) The race leading to state inconsistency is (all operations on the same CPU and kmem_cache): - task A: begin do_slab_free(): - read TID - read pcpu freelist (==NULL) - check `slab == c->slab` (true) - [PREEMPT A->B] - task B: begin slab_alloc_node(): - fastpath fails (`c->freelist` is NULL) - enter __slab_alloc() - slub_get_cpu_ptr() (disables preemption) - enter ___slab_alloc() - take local_lock_irqsave() - read c->freelist as NULL - get_freelist() returns NULL - write `c->slab = NULL` - drop local_unlock_irqrestore() - goto new_slab - slub_percpu_partial() is NULL - get_partial() returns NULL - slub_put_cpu_ptr() (enables preemption) - [PREEMPT B->A] - task A: finish do_slab_free(): - this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() succeeds() - [CORRUPT STATE: c->slab==NULL, c->freelist!=NULL] From there, the object on c->freelist will get lost if task B is allowed to continue from here: It will proceed to the retry_load_slab label, set c->slab, then jump to load_freelist, which clobbers c->freelist. But if we instead continue as follows, we get worse corruption: - task A: run __slab_free() on object from other struct slab: - CPU_PARTIAL_FREE case (slab was on no list, is now on pcpu partial) - task A: run slab_alloc_node() with NUMA node constraint: - fastpath fails (c->slab is NULL) - call __slab_alloc() - slub_get_cpu_ptr() (disables preemption) - enter ___slab_alloc() - c->slab is NULL: goto new_slab - slub_percpu_partial() is non-NULL - set c->slab to slub_percpu_partial(c) - [CORRUPT STATE: c->slab points to slab-1, c->freelist has objects from slab-2] - goto redo - node_match() fails - goto deactivate_slab - existing c->freelist is passed into deactivate_slab() - inuse count of slab-1 is decremented to account for object from slab-2 At this point, the inuse count of slab-1 is 1 lower than it should be. This means that if we free all allocated objects in slab-1 except for one, SLUB will think that slab-1 is completely unused, and may free its page, leading to use-after-free.

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49700

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49700

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025022629-CVE-2022-49700-2b3e@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Out of support scope
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Out of support scope
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Fixed RHSA-2024:3138
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2023:2458
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown Red Hat NVD
CVSS v3 Base Score 5.5
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Privileges Required Low
User Interaction None
Scope Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact None
Integrity Impact None
Availability Impact High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our This content is not included.Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?

When a product is listed as "Out of Support Scope", it means a vulnerability with the impact level assigned to this CVE is no longer covered by its current support lifecycle phase. The product has been identified to contain the impacted component, but analysis to determine whether it is affected or not by this vulnerability was not performed. The product should be assumed to be affected. Customers are advised to apply any mitigation options documented on this page, consider removing or disabling the impacted component, or upgrade to a supported version of the product that has an update available.