CVE-2022-50118
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: powerpc/perf: Optimize clearing the pending PMI and remove WARN_ON for PMI check in power_pmu_disable commit 2c9ac51b850d ("powerpc/perf: Fix PMU callbacks to clear pending PMI before resetting an overflown PMC") added a new function "pmi_irq_pending" in hw_irq.h. This function is to check if there is a PMI marked as pending in Paca (PACA_IRQ_PMI).This is used in power_pmu_disable in a WARN_ON. The intention here is to provide a warning if there is PMI pending, but no counter is found overflown. During some of the perf runs, below warning is hit: WARNING: CPU: 36 PID: 0 at arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c:1332 power_pmu_disable+0x25c/0x2c0 Modules linked in: ----- NIP [c000000000141c3c] power_pmu_disable+0x25c/0x2c0 LR [c000000000141c8c] power_pmu_disable+0x2ac/0x2c0 Call Trace: [c000000baffcfb90] [c000000000141c8c] power_pmu_disable+0x2ac/0x2c0 (unreliable) [c000000baffcfc10] [c0000000003e2f8c] perf_pmu_disable+0x4c/0x60 [c000000baffcfc30] [c0000000003e3344] group_sched_out.part.124+0x44/0x100 [c000000baffcfc80] [c0000000003e353c] __perf_event_disable+0x13c/0x240 [c000000baffcfcd0] [c0000000003dd334] event_function+0xc4/0x140 [c000000baffcfd20] [c0000000003d855c] remote_function+0x7c/0xa0 [c000000baffcfd50] [c00000000026c394] flush_smp_call_function_queue+0xd4/0x300 [c000000baffcfde0] [c000000000065b24] smp_ipi_demux_relaxed+0xa4/0x100 [c000000baffcfe20] [c0000000000cb2b0] xive_muxed_ipi_action+0x20/0x40 [c000000baffcfe40] [c000000000207c3c] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x8c/0x250 [c000000baffcfee0] [c000000000207e2c] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x2c/0xa0 [c000000baffcff10] [c000000000210a04] handle_percpu_irq+0x84/0xc0 [c000000baffcff40] [c000000000205f14] generic_handle_irq+0x54/0x80 [c000000baffcff60] [c000000000015740] __do_irq+0x90/0x1d0 [c000000baffcff90] [c000000000016990] __do_IRQ+0xc0/0x140 [c0000009732f3940] [c000000bafceaca8] 0xc000000bafceaca8 [c0000009732f39d0] [c000000000016b78] do_IRQ+0x168/0x1c0 [c0000009732f3a00] [c0000000000090c8] hardware_interrupt_common_virt+0x218/0x220 This means that there is no PMC overflown among the active events in the PMU, but there is a PMU pending in Paca. The function "any_pmc_overflown" checks the PMCs on active events in cpuhw->n_events. Code snippet: <<>> if (any_pmc_overflown(cpuhw)) clear_pmi_irq_pending(); else WARN_ON(pmi_irq_pending()); <<>> Here the PMC overflown is not from active event. Example: When we do perf record, default cycles and instructions will be running on PMC6 and PMC5 respectively. It could happen that overflowed event is currently not active and pending PMI is for the inactive event. Debug logs from trace_printk: <<>> any_pmc_overflown: idx is 5: pmc value is 0xd9a power_pmu_disable: PMC1: 0x0, PMC2: 0x0, PMC3: 0x0, PMC4: 0x0, PMC5: 0xd9a, PMC6: 0x80002011 <<>> Here active PMC (from idx) is PMC5 , but overflown PMC is PMC6(0x80002011). When we handle PMI interrupt for such cases, if the PMC overflown is from inactive event, it will be ignored. Reference commit: commit bc09c219b2e6 ("powerpc/perf: Fix finding overflowed PMC in interrupt") Patch addresses two changes: 1) Fix 1 : Removal of warning ( WARN_ON(pmi_irq_pending()); ) We were printing warning if no PMC is found overflown among active PMU events, but PMI pending in PACA. But this could happen in cases where PMC overflown is not in active PMC. An inactive event could have caused the overflow. Hence the warning is not needed. To know pending PMI is from an inactive event, we need to loop through all PMC's which will cause more SPR reads via mfspr and increase in context switch. Also in existing function: perf_event_interrupt, already we ignore PMI's overflown when it is from an inactive PMC. 2) Fix 2: optimization in clearing pending PMI. Currently we check for any active PMC overflown before clearing PMI pending in Paca. This is causing additional SP ---truncated---
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>= 5.10.94, < 5.10.137>= 5.15.17, < 5.15.61>= 5.16.3, < 5.18.18>= 5.19, < 5.19.2CVSS 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 · scoped5.10.1375.15.615.18.18
Linux kernel 5.10.137+ / 5.15.61+ / 5.18.18+ / 5.19.2+ (depending on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Determine which version branch your kernel falls into (5.10.x, 5.15.x, 5.16.x, or 5.19.x)
- 3. Upgrade to a kernel version that includes the fix: for 5.10.x upgrade to >= 5.10.137, for 5.15.x upgrade to >= 5.15.61, for 5.16.x upgrade to >= 5.18.18, for 5.19.x upgrade to >= 5.19.2
- 4. Use your distribution's package manager to install the new kernel (e.g., `apt-get update && apt-get install linux-image-<version>` for Debian/Ubuntu, or `yum update kernel` for RHEL/CentOS)
- 5. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- 6. Verify the new kernel is running with `uname -r`
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-2022-50118 — 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-2022-50118 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