CVE-2022-49943

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: USB: gadget: Fix obscure lockdep violation for udc_mutex A recent commit expanding the scope of the udc_lock mutex in the gadget core managed to cause an obscure and slightly bizarre lockdep violation. In abbreviated form: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc7+ #12510 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ udevadm/312 is trying to acquire lock: ffff80000aae1058 (udc_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: usb_udc_uevent+0x54/0xe0 but task is already holding lock: ffff000002277548 (kn->active#4){++++}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x34/0xe0 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #3 (kn->active#4){++++}-{0:0}:        lock_acquire+0x68/0x84        __kernfs_remove+0x268/0x380        kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x58/0xac        sysfs_remove_file_ns+0x18/0x24        device_del+0x15c/0x440 -> #2 (device_links_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:        lock_acquire+0x68/0x84        __mutex_lock+0x9c/0x430        mutex_lock_nested+0x38/0x64        device_link_remove+0x3c/0xa0        _regulator_put.part.0+0x168/0x190        regulator_put+0x3c/0x54        devm_regulator_release+0x14/0x20 -> #1 (regulator_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:        lock_acquire+0x68/0x84        __mutex_lock+0x9c/0x430        mutex_lock_nested+0x38/0x64        regulator_lock_dependent+0x54/0x284        regulator_enable+0x34/0x80        phy_power_on+0x24/0x130        __dwc2_lowlevel_hw_enable+0x100/0x130        dwc2_lowlevel_hw_enable+0x18/0x40        dwc2_hsotg_udc_start+0x6c/0x2f0        gadget_bind_driver+0x124/0x1f4 -> #0 (udc_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:        __lock_acquire+0x1298/0x20cc        lock_acquire.part.0+0xe0/0x230        lock_acquire+0x68/0x84        __mutex_lock+0x9c/0x430        mutex_lock_nested+0x38/0x64        usb_udc_uevent+0x54/0xe0 Evidently this was caused by the scope of udc_mutex being too large. The mutex is only meant to protect udc->driver along with a few other things. As far as I can tell, there's no reason for the mutex to be held while the gadget core calls a gadget driver's ->bind or ->unbind routine, or while a UDC is being started or stopped. (This accounts for link #1 in the chain above, where the mutex is held while the dwc2_hsotg_udc is started as part of driver probing.) Gadget drivers' ->disconnect callbacks are problematic. Even though usb_gadget_disconnect() will now acquire the udc_mutex, there's a window in usb_gadget_bind_driver() between the times when the mutex is released and the ->bind callback is invoked. If a disconnect occurred during that window, we could call the driver's ->disconnect routine before its ->bind routine. To prevent this from happening, it will be necessary to prevent a UDC from connecting while it has no gadget driver. This should be done already but it doesn't seem to be; currently usb_gadget_connect() has no check for this. Such a check will have to be added later. Some degree of mutual exclusion is required in soft_connect_store(), which can dereference udc->driver at arbitrary times since it is a sysfs callback. The solution here is to acquire the gadget's device lock rather than the udc_mutex. Since the driver core guarantees that the device lock is always held during driver binding and unbinding, this will make the accesses in soft_connect_store() mutually exclusive with any changes to udc->driver. Lastly, it turns out there is one place which should hold the udc_mutex but currently does not: The function_show() routine needs protection while it dereferences udc->driver. The missing lock and unlock calls are added.

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49943

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49943

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025061807-CVE-2022-49943-7809@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 Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
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 7 5.5
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity High Low
Privileges Required Low Low
User Interaction None None
Scope Unchanged Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact High None
Integrity Impact High None
Availability Impact High High

CVSS v3 Vector

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

NVD 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.