CVE-2022-49961 — linux / linux_kernel
Out-of-bounds ReadIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO
Precision markers need to be propagated whenever we have an ARG_CONST_* style argument, as the verifier cannot consider imprecise scalars to be equivalent for the purposes of states_equal check when such arguments refine the return value (in this case, set mem_size for PTR_TO_MEM). The resultant mem_size for the R0 is derived from the constant value, and if the verifier incorrectly prunes states considering them equivalent where such arguments exist (by seeing that both registers have reg->precise as false in regsafe), we can end up with invalid programs passing the verifier which can do access beyond what should have been the correct mem_size in that explored state.
To show a concrete example of the problem:
0000000000000000 <prog>: 0: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) 1: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76) 2: r3 = r1 3: r3 += 4 4: if r3 > r2 goto +18 <LBB5_5> 5: w2 = 0 6: *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 7: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) 8: r2 = 1 9: if w1 == 0 goto +1 <LBB5_3> 10: r2 = -1
0000000000000058 <LBB5_3>: 11: r1 = 0 ll 13: r3 = 0 14: call bpf_ringbuf_reserve 15: if r0 == 0 goto +7 <LBB5_5> 16: r1 = r0 17: r1 += 16777215 18: w2 = 0 19: *(u8 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 20: r1 = r0 21: r2 = 0 22: call bpf_ringbuf_submit
00000000000000b8 <LBB5_5>: 23: w0 = 0 24: exit
For the first case, the single line execution's exploration will prune the search at insn 14 for the branch insn 9's second leg as it will be verified first using r2 = -1 (UINT_MAX), while as w1 at insn 9 will always be 0 so at runtime we don't get error for being greater than UINT_MAX/4 from bpf_ringbuf_reserve. The verifier during regsafe just sees reg->precise as false for both r2 registers in both states, hence considers them equal for purposes of states_equal.
If we propagated precise markers using the backtracking support, we would use the precise marking to then ensure that old r2 (UINT_MAX) was within the new r2 (1) and this would never be true, so the verification would rightfully fail.
The end result is that the out of bounds access at instruction 19 would be permitted without this fix.
Note that reg->precise is always set to true when user does not have CAP_BPF (or when subprog count is greater than 1 (i.e. use of any static or global functions)), hence this is only a problem when precision marks need to be explicitly propagated (i.e. privileged users with CAP_BPF).
A simplified test case has been included in the next patch to prevent future regressions.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.8 | 5.19.8 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.0-rc1 | 6.0-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.0-rc2 | 6.0-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.0-rc3 | 6.0-rc3.x |
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.