CVE-2022-48760
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: USB: core: Fix hang in usb_kill_urb by adding memory barriers The syzbot fuzzer has identified a bug in which processes hang waiting for usb_kill_urb() to return. It turns out the issue is not unlinking the URB; that works just fine. Rather, the problem arises when the wakeup notification that the URB has completed is not received. The reason is memory-access ordering on SMP systems. In outline form, usb_kill_urb() and __usb_hcd_giveback_urb() operating concurrently on different CPUs perform the following actions: CPU 0 CPU 1 ---------------------------- --------------------------------- usb_kill_urb(): __usb_hcd_giveback_urb(): ... ... atomic_inc(&urb->reject); atomic_dec(&urb->use_count); ... ... wait_event(usb_kill_urb_queue, atomic_read(&urb->use_count) == 0); if (atomic_read(&urb->reject)) wake_up(&usb_kill_urb_queue); Confining your attention to urb->reject and urb->use_count, you can see that the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 0 is: write urb->reject, then read urb->use_count; whereas the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 1 is: write urb->use_count, then read urb->reject. This pattern is referred to in memory-model circles as SB (for "Store Buffering"), and it is well known that without suitable enforcement of the desired order of accesses -- in the form of memory barriers -- it is entirely possible for one or both CPUs to execute their reads ahead of their writes. The end result will be that sometimes CPU 0 sees the old un-decremented value of urb->use_count while CPU 1 sees the old un-incremented value of urb->reject. Consequently CPU 0 ends up on the wait queue and never gets woken up, leading to the observed hang in usb_kill_urb(). The same pattern of accesses occurs in usb_poison_urb() and the failure pathway of usb_hcd_submit_urb(). The problem is fixed by adding suitable memory barriers. To provide proper memory-access ordering in the SB pattern, a full barrier is required on both CPUs. The atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() accesses themselves don't provide any memory ordering, but since they are present, we can use the optimized smp_mb__after_atomic() memory barrier in the various routines to obtain the desired effect. This patch adds the necessary memory barriers.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisShared resources are accessed without correct locking, so concurrent operations interleave into inconsistent — and sometimes exploitable — states, or deadlock the service outright. These bugs are subtle and timing-dependent. The fix is correct, consistent locking or atomic operations around every shared resource.
General guidance for the improper locking class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 4.4.302>= 4.5, < 4.9.300>= 4.10, < 4.14.265>= 4.15, < 4.19.228>= 4.20, < 5.4.176>= 5.5, < 5.10.96>= 5.11, < 5.15.19>= 5.16, < 5.16.5= 5.17CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped4.4.3024.9.3004.14.265
Upgrade to kernel 4.4.302 / 4.9.300 / 4.14.265 / 4.19.228 or later (depending on your branch), or a 5.x/6.x stable release
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version branch your kernel derives from (e.g., 4.4.x, 4.9.x, 4.14.x, 4.19.x, or a 5.x/6.x branch)
- For 4.4.x kernels: upgrade to kernel version 4.4.302 or later
- For 4.9.x kernels: upgrade to kernel version 4.9.300 or later
- For 4.14.x kernels: upgrade to kernel version 4.14.265 or later
- For 4.19.x kernels: upgrade to kernel version 4.19.228 or later
- For 5.x and later kernels: upgrade to a stable release that includes commit 26fbe9772b8c (e.g., 5.4.190+, 5.10.118+, 5.15.41+, 5.17.14+, 5.18+, 6.0+)
- Verify the fix by checking the kernel source: confirm that `smp_mb__after_atomic()` calls have been added in usb_kill_urb(), usb_poison_urb(), and the failure pathway of usb_hcd_submit_urb() in drivers/usb/core/urb.c
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-48760 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-48760 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data