CVE-2022-48974
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: netfilter: conntrack: fix using __this_cpu_add in preemptible Currently in nf_conntrack_hash_check_insert(), when it fails in nf_ct_ext_valid_pre/post(), NF_CT_STAT_INC() will be called in the preemptible context, a call trace can be triggered: BUG: using __this_cpu_add() in preemptible [00000000] code: conntrack/1636 caller is nf_conntrack_hash_check_insert+0x45/0x430 [nf_conntrack] Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x33/0x46 check_preemption_disabled+0xc3/0xf0 nf_conntrack_hash_check_insert+0x45/0x430 [nf_conntrack] ctnetlink_create_conntrack+0x3cd/0x4e0 [nf_conntrack_netlink] ctnetlink_new_conntrack+0x1c0/0x450 [nf_conntrack_netlink] nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x277/0x2f0 [nfnetlink] netlink_rcv_skb+0x50/0x100 nfnetlink_rcv+0x65/0x144 [nfnetlink] netlink_unicast+0x1ae/0x290 netlink_sendmsg+0x257/0x4f0 sock_sendmsg+0x5f/0x70 This patch is to fix it by changing to use NF_CT_STAT_INC_ATOMIC() for nf_ct_ext_valid_pre/post() check in nf_conntrack_hash_check_insert(), as well as nf_ct_ext_valid_post() in __nf_conntrack_confirm(). Note that nf_ct_ext_valid_pre() check in __nf_conntrack_confirm() is safe to use NF_CT_STAT_INC(), as it's under local_bh_disable().
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 5.19, < 6.0.13= 6.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 · scoped6.0.13
Linux Kernel 6.0.13 or later, or 6.1.1 or later
- 1. Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Upgrade to Linux kernel version >= 6.0.13 or >= 6.1.1
- 3. Update the kernel package via your distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt update && apt upgrade`, `yum update`, or `dnf upgrade`)
- 4. Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- 5. Verify the fix is applied by checking `uname -r` shows the new version and confirming the kernel config includes CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_STATS=y
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-2022-48974 — 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-2022-48974 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