CVE-2022-49936
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: Prevent nested device-reset calls Automatic kernel fuzzing revealed a recursive locking violation in usb-storage: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 5.18.0 #3 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:3/1205 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888018638db8 (&us_interface_key[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230 but task is already holding lock: ffff888018638db8 (&us_interface_key[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230 ... stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 1205 Comm: kworker/1:3 Not tainted 5.18.0 #3 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event Call Trace: <TASK> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2988 [inline] check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3031 [inline] validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3816 [inline] __lock_acquire.cold+0x152/0x3ca kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053 lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5665 [inline] lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5630 __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline] __mutex_lock+0x14f/0x1610 kernel/locking/mutex.c:747 usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230 usb_reset_device+0x37d/0x9a0 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:6109 r871xu_dev_remove+0x21a/0x270 drivers/staging/rtl8712/usb_intf.c:622 usb_unbind_interface+0x1bd/0x890 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:458 device_remove drivers/base/dd.c:545 [inline] device_remove+0x11f/0x170 drivers/base/dd.c:537 __device_release_driver drivers/base/dd.c:1222 [inline] device_release_driver_internal+0x1a7/0x2f0 drivers/base/dd.c:1248 usb_driver_release_interface+0x102/0x180 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:627 usb_forced_unbind_intf+0x4d/0xa0 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:1118 usb_reset_device+0x39b/0x9a0 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:6114 This turned out not to be an error in usb-storage but rather a nested device reset attempt. That is, as the rtl8712 driver was being unbound from a composite device in preparation for an unrelated USB reset (that driver does not have pre_reset or post_reset callbacks), its ->remove routine called usb_reset_device() -- thus nesting one reset call within another. Performing a reset as part of disconnect processing is a questionable practice at best. However, the bug report points out that the USB core does not have any protection against nested resets. Adding a reset_in_progress flag and testing it will prevent such errors in the future.
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< 4.9.328>= 4.10, < 4.14.293>= 4.15, < 4.19.258>= 4.20, < 5.4.213>= 5.5, < 5.10.142>= 5.11, < 5.15.66>= 5.16, < 5.19.8= 6.0CVSS 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 · scoped4.9.3284.14.2934.19.258
Linux kernel >= 5.4.213 (or >= 4.19.258, >= 4.14.293, or >= 4.9.328 depending on your branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Determine which major kernel branch your version belongs to (e.g., 4.9.x, 4.14.x, 4.19.x, 5.4.x)
- 3. Upgrade the kernel to a version at or beyond the fixed release for your branch: for 4.9.x upgrade to >= 4.9.328; for 4.14.x upgrade to >= 4.14.293; for 4.19.x upgrade to >= 4.19.258; for 5.4.x upgrade to >= 5.4.213
- 4. If using a distribution-provided kernel, update via the distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt update && apt upgrade linux-image-*` for Debian/Ubuntu, `yum update kernel` for RHEL/CentOS)
- 5. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- 6. Verify the fix is applied by checking that the `reset_in_progress` flag exists in the USB core code: `grep -r reset_in_progress /usr/src/linux/drivers/usb/core/`
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-2022-49936 — 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-2022-49936 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