CVE-2022-50468
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: platform/chrome: cros_usbpd_notify: Fix error handling in cros_usbpd_notify_init() The following WARNING message was given when rmmod cros_usbpd_notify: Unexpected driver unregister! WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 253 at drivers/base/driver.c:270 driver_unregister+0x8a/0xb0 Modules linked in: cros_usbpd_notify(-) CPU: 0 PID: 253 Comm: rmmod Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3 #24 ... Call Trace: <TASK> cros_usbpd_notify_exit+0x11/0x1e [cros_usbpd_notify] __x64_sys_delete_module+0x3c7/0x570 ? __ia32_sys_delete_module+0x570/0x570 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe3/0x140 ? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x17/0x50 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0xa0/0xd0 ? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x1c/0x50 do_syscall_64+0x37/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd RIP: 0033:0x7f333fe9b1b7 The reason is that the cros_usbpd_notify_init() does not check the return value of platform_driver_register(), and the cros_usbpd_notify can install successfully even if platform_driver_register() failed. Fix by checking the return value of platform_driver_register() and unregister cros_usbpd_notify_plat_driver when it failed.
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>= 5.7, < 5.10.163>= 5.11, < 5.15.86>= 5.16, < 6.0.16>= 6.1, < 6.1.2CVSS 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 · scoped5.10.1635.15.866.0.16
5.10.163, 5.15.86, 6.0.16, or 6.1.2 (or later versions in each respective branch)
- Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which branch of the affected versions your kernel falls into based on the version ranges: >= 5.7 & < 5.10.163, >= 5.11 & < 5.15.86, >= 5.16 & < 6.0.16, or >= 6.1 & < 6.1.2
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to one of the fixed releases: 5.10.163 or later in the 5.10.x branch, 5.15.86 or later in the 5.15.x branch, 6.0.16 or later in the 6.0.x branch, or 6.1.2 or later in the 6.1.x branch
- Reboot the system into the new kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking that `cros_usbpd_notify` module can be loaded and unloaded without the 'Unexpected driver unregister' warning
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-2022-50468 — 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-2022-50468 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