Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2022-48980

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-10-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.15.83 / 6.0.13 or later.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: sja1105: avoid out of bounds access in sja1105_init_l2_policing() The SJA1105 family has 45 L2 policing table entries (SJA1105_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT) and SJA1110 has 110 (SJA1110_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT). Keeping the table structure but accounting for the difference in port count (5 in SJA1105 vs 10 in SJA1110) does not fully explain the difference. Rather, the SJA1110 also has L2 ingress policers for multicast traffic. If a packet is classified as multicast, it will be processed by the policer index 99 + SRCPORT. The sja1105_init_l2_policing() function initializes all L2 policers such that they don't interfere with normal packet reception by default. To have a common code between SJA1105 and SJA1110, the index of the multicast policer for the port is calculated because it's an index that is out of bounds for SJA1105 but in bounds for SJA1110, and a bounds check is performed. The code fails to do the proper thing when determining what to do with the multicast policer of port 0 on SJA1105 (ds->num_ports = 5). The "mcast" index will be equal to 45, which is also equal to table->ops->max_entry_count (SJA1105_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT). So it passes through the check. But at the same time, SJA1105 doesn't have multicast policers. So the code programs the SHARINDX field of an out-of-bounds element in the L2 Policing table of the static config. The comparison between index 45 and 45 entries should have determined the code to not access this policer index on SJA1105, since its memory wasn't even allocated. With enough bad luck, the out-of-bounds write could even overwrite other valid kernel data, but in this case, the issue was detected using KASAN. Kernel log: sja1105 spi5.0: Probed switch chip: SJA1105Q ================================================================== BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sja1105_setup+0x1cbc/0x2340 Write of size 8 at addr ffffff880bd57708 by task kworker/u8:0/8 ... Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func Call trace: ... sja1105_setup+0x1cbc/0x2340 dsa_register_switch+0x1284/0x18d0 sja1105_probe+0x748/0x840 ... Allocated by task 8: ... sja1105_setup+0x1bcc/0x2340 dsa_register_switch+0x1284/0x18d0 sja1105_probe+0x748/0x840 ...

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 analysis
How this class of weakness works · CWE-787

The program writes past the bounds of a buffer, overwriting adjacent memory an attacker can turn to their advantage. Crafted input can overwrite control data and redirect execution. Remediation is validating every index and length before a write, plus modern memory-safety mitigations.

General guidance for the out-of-bounds write 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
Linux KernelOperating system
Affected:>= 5.14, < 5.15.83>= 5.16, < 6.0.13= 6.1

CVSS 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
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.15.83 / 6.0.13 or later
Fixed in 5.15.836.0.13
Vendor patch git.kernel.org →
Recommended fix High confidence

5.15.83+, 6.0.13+, or 6.2+ depending on current branch

  1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
  2. Determine which branch the current kernel falls into based on affected versions: 5.14-5.15.x, 5.16-6.0.x, or 6.1.x
  3. For kernels >= 5.14 and < 5.15.83: Upgrade to kernel version 5.15.83 or later (5.15.x stable)
  4. For kernels >= 5.16 and < 6.0.13: Upgrade to kernel version 6.0.13 or later (6.0.x stable)
  5. For kernel 6.1.x: Upgrade to kernel version 6.2 or later (6.2 stable)
  6. After upgrading, reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
  7. Verify the fix by checking the kernel version: `uname -r` and confirming it's >= the appropriate fixed version
Caveat Kernel upgrades are generally safe; however, ensure driver compatibility for DSA/sja1105 and review any kernel config changes between versions

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $3,200. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-48980 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-48980 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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