CVE-2022-49778
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: arm64/mm: fix incorrect file_map_count for non-leaf pmd/pud The page table check trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly when collapse hugepage: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at mm/page_table_check.c:82! Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) Modules linked in: CPU: 6 PID: 68 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3+ #750 Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : page_table_check_clear.isra.0+0x258/0x3f0 lr : page_table_check_clear.isra.0+0x240/0x3f0 [...] Call trace: page_table_check_clear.isra.0+0x258/0x3f0 __page_table_check_pmd_clear+0xbc/0x108 pmdp_collapse_flush+0xb0/0x160 collapse_huge_page+0xa08/0x1080 hpage_collapse_scan_pmd+0xf30/0x1590 khugepaged_scan_mm_slot.constprop.0+0x52c/0xac8 khugepaged+0x338/0x518 kthread+0x278/0x2f8 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 [...] Since pmd_user_accessible_page() doesn't check if a pmd is leaf, it decrease file_map_count for a non-leaf pmd comes from collapse_huge_page(). and so trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly. Fix this problem by using pmd_leaf() insteal of pmd_present() in pmd_user_accessible_page(). Moreover, use pud_leaf() for pud_user_accessible_page() too.
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 analysisAttacker-controllable input can reach an assertion that aborts the process when it fails, so a check meant for debugging becomes a denial-of-service in production. A single crafted request takes the service down. The fix is to handle unexpected input gracefully on reachable paths rather than asserting on it.
General guidance for the reachable assertion 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>= 5.19, < 6.0.10= 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 · scoped6.0.10
Linux Kernel 6.0.10+ or 6.2+
- Upgrade Linux Kernel to version 6.0.10 or later if running 6.0.x series
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 6.2 or later if running 6.1.x series
- Verify the fix commit 2d458046df634088611d44fd77f45465e833ef78 is included in the target kernel version
- Reboot into the new kernel to apply the fix
- The fix changes pmd_user_accessible_page() to use pmd_leaf() instead of pmd_present() and pud_user_accessible_page() to use pud_leaf() to properly check for leaf entries before modifying file_map_count
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-2022-49778 — 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-2022-49778 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