CVE-2022-49783 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2022-49783
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-2022-49783 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕜 02 May 2025, 13:53 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 01 May 2025, 15:16 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2022-49783 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2022-49783: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/fpu: Drop fpregs lock before inheriting FPU permissions Mike Galbraith reported the following against an old fork of preempt-rt but the same issue also applies to the current preempt-rt tree. BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1, name: systemd preempt_count: 1, expected: 0 RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0 Preemption disabled at: fpu_clone CPU: 6 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Tainted: G E (unreleased) Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl ? fpu_clone __might_resched rt_spin_lock fpu_clone ? copy_thread ? copy_process ? shmem_alloc_inode ? kmem_cache_alloc ? kernel_clone ? __do_sys_clone ? do_syscall_64 ? __x64_sys_rt_sigprocmask ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode ? do_syscall_64 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode ? do_syscall_64 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode ? do_syscall_64 ? exc_page_fault ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe </TASK> Mike says: The splat comes from fpu_inherit_perms() being called under fpregs_lock(), and us reaching the spin_lock_irq() therein due to fpu_state_size_dynamic() returning true despite static key __fpu_state_size_dynamic having never been enabled. Mike's assessment looks correct. fpregs_lock on a PREEMPT_RT kernel disables preemption so calling spin_lock_irq() in fpu_inherit_perms() is unsafe. This problem exists since commit 9e798e9aa14c ("x86/fpu: Prepare fpu_clone() for dynamically enabled features"). Even though the original bug report should not have enabled the paths at all, the bug still exists. fpregs_lock is necessary when editing the FPU registers or a task's FP state but it is not necessary for fpu_inherit_perms(). The only write of any FP state in fpu_inherit_perms() is for the new child which is not running yet and cannot context switch or be borrowed by a kernel thread yet. Hence, fpregs_lock is not protecting anything in the new child until clone() completes and can be dropped earlier. The siglock still needs to be acquired by fpu_inherit_perms() as the read of the parent's permissions has to be serialised. [ bp: Cleanup splat. ]

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2022-49783

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2022-49783 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-2022-49783

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2022-49783.

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-2022-49783, 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-2022-49783, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2022-49783 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2022-49783 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2022-49783 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2022-49783 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2022-49783: 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-2025-4488 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown...
CVE-2025-4487 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. It has been classified as critical. Affected is an unknown function of the fil...
CVE-2025-4486 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the f...
CVE-2025-4485 – A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the...
CVE-2025-4484 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in itsourcecode Gym Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /a...