CVE-2022-49194 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2022-49194
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

Attack Complexity:
Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
Attack Vector:
Attack Vector Under Analysis
Privileges Required: None
No authentication is required for exploitation.
Scope:
Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
User Interaction: None
No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2022-49194 Details

Status: Received on 26 Feb 2025, 07:00 UTC

Published on: 26 Feb 2025, 07:00 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2022-49194 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2022-49194: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read/writes to assure ordering GCC12 appears to be much smarter about its dependency tracking and is aware that the relaxed variants are just normal loads and stores and this is causing problems like: [ 210.074549] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 210.079223] NETDEV WATCHDOG: enabcm6e4ei0 (bcmgenet): transmit queue 1 timed out [ 210.086717] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net/sched/sch_generic.c:529 dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.095044] Modules linked in: genet(E) nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat] [ 210.146561] ACPI CPPC: PCC check channel failed for ss: 0. ret=-110 [ 210.146927] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G E 5.17.0-rc7G12+ #58 [ 210.153226] CPPC Cpufreq:cppc_scale_freq_workfn: failed to read perf counters [ 210.161349] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi Foundation Raspberry Pi 4 Model B/Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, BIOS EDK2-DEV 02/08/2022 [ 210.161353] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 210.161358] pc : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.161364] lr : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.161368] sp : ffff8000080a3a40 [ 210.161370] x29: ffff8000080a3a40 x28: ffffcd425af87000 x27: ffff8000080a3b20 [ 210.205150] x26: ffffcd425aa00000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffcd425af8ec08 [ 210.212321] x23: 0000000000000100 x22: ffffcd425af87000 x21: ffff55b142688000 [ 210.219491] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff55b1426884c8 x18: ffffffffffffffff [ 210.226661] x17: 64656d6974203120 x16: 0000000000000001 x15: 6d736e617274203a [ 210.233831] x14: 2974656e65676d63 x13: ffffcd4259c300d8 x12: ffffcd425b07d5f0 [ 210.241001] x11: 00000000ffffffff x10: ffffcd425b07d5f0 x9 : ffffcd4258bdad9c [ 210.248171] x8 : 00000000ffffdfff x7 : 000000000000003f x6 : 0000000000000000 [ 210.255341] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000001000 [ 210.262511] x2 : 0000000000001000 x1 : 0000000000000005 x0 : 0000000000000044 [ 210.269682] Call trace: [ 210.272133] dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.275811] call_timer_fn+0x3c/0x15c [ 210.279489] __run_timers.part.0+0x288/0x310 [ 210.283777] run_timer_softirq+0x48/0x80 [ 210.287716] __do_softirq+0x128/0x360 [ 210.291392] __irq_exit_rcu+0x138/0x140 [ 210.295243] irq_exit_rcu+0x1c/0x30 [ 210.298745] el1_interrupt+0x38/0x54 [ 210.302334] el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24 [ 210.306445] el1h_64_irq+0x7c/0x80 [ 210.309857] arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x2c [ 210.313445] default_idle_call+0x4c/0x140 [ 210.317470] cpuidle_idle_call+0x14c/0x1a0 [ 210.321584] do_idle+0xb0/0x100 [ 210.324737] cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x8c [ 210.328675] secondary_start_kernel+0xe4/0x110 [ 210.333138] __secondary_switched+0x94/0x98 The assumption when these were relaxed seems to be that device memory would be mapped non reordering, and that other constructs (spinlocks/etc) would provide the barriers to assure that packet data and in memory rings/queues were ordered with respect to device register reads/writes. This itself seems a bit sketchy, but the real problem with GCC12 is that it is moving the actual reads/writes around at will as though they were independent operations when in truth they are not, but the compiler can't know that. When looking at the assembly dumps for many of these routines its possible to see very clean, but not strictly in program order operations occurring as the compiler would be free to do if these weren't actually register reads/write operations. Its possible to suppress the timeout with a liberal bit of dma_mb()'s sprinkled around but the device still seems unable to reliably send/receive data. A better plan is to use the safer readl/writel everywhere. Since this partially reverts an older commit, which notes the use of the relaxed variants for performance reasons. I would suggest that any performance problems ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2022-49194

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2022-49194 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2022-49194

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2022-49194.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2022-49194, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2022-49194, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2022-49194 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2022-49194 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2022-49194 does not affect system availability.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.045% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 18.4% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.6% of others.

CVE-2022-49194 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2022-49194: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-3801 – A vulnerability was found in songquanpeng one-api up to 0.6.10. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the componen...
CVE-2025-3800 – A vulnerability has been found in WCMS 11 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file app/co...
CVE-2025-3799 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in WCMS 11. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/controllers/AnonymousContr...
CVE-2025-3798 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in WCMS 11. This issue affects the function sub of the file app/admin/AdvadminCon...
CVE-2025-3661 – The SB Chart block plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘className’ parameter in all versions up to, and inclu...