FKIE_CVE-2022-49542
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-02-26 07:01 - Updated: 2025-10-01 20:16
Severity ?
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: lpfc: Move cfg_log_verbose check before calling lpfc_dmp_dbg()
In an attempt to log message 0126 with LOG_TRACE_EVENT, the following hard
lockup call trace hangs the system.
Call Trace:
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x32/0x40
lpfc_dmp_dbg.part.32+0x28/0x220 [lpfc]
lpfc_cmpl_els_fdisc+0x145/0x460 [lpfc]
lpfc_sli_cancel_jobs+0x92/0xd0 [lpfc]
lpfc_els_flush_cmd+0x43c/0x670 [lpfc]
lpfc_els_flush_all_cmd+0x37/0x60 [lpfc]
lpfc_sli4_async_event_proc+0x956/0x1720 [lpfc]
lpfc_do_work+0x1485/0x1d70 [lpfc]
kthread+0x112/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40
Kernel panic - not syncing: Hard LOCKUP
The same CPU tries to claim the phba->port_list_lock twice.
Move the cfg_log_verbose checks as part of the lpfc_printf_vlog() and
lpfc_printf_log() macros before calling lpfc_dmp_dbg(). There is no need
to take the phba->port_list_lock within lpfc_dmp_dbg().
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * |
{
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "40E62665-0BA6-440F-83E8-6F8EC2D3C9DF",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.15.46",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "15E2DD33-2255-4B76-9C15-04FF8CBAB252",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.17.14",
"versionStartIncluding": "5.16",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "8E122216-2E9E-4B3E-B7B8-D575A45BA3C2",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.18.3",
"versionStartIncluding": "5.18",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nscsi: lpfc: Move cfg_log_verbose check before calling lpfc_dmp_dbg()\n\nIn an attempt to log message 0126 with LOG_TRACE_EVENT, the following hard\nlockup call trace hangs the system.\n\nCall Trace:\n _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x32/0x40\n lpfc_dmp_dbg.part.32+0x28/0x220 [lpfc]\n lpfc_cmpl_els_fdisc+0x145/0x460 [lpfc]\n lpfc_sli_cancel_jobs+0x92/0xd0 [lpfc]\n lpfc_els_flush_cmd+0x43c/0x670 [lpfc]\n lpfc_els_flush_all_cmd+0x37/0x60 [lpfc]\n lpfc_sli4_async_event_proc+0x956/0x1720 [lpfc]\n lpfc_do_work+0x1485/0x1d70 [lpfc]\n kthread+0x112/0x130\n ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40\nKernel panic - not syncing: Hard LOCKUP\n\nThe same CPU tries to claim the phba-\u003eport_list_lock twice.\n\nMove the cfg_log_verbose checks as part of the lpfc_printf_vlog() and\nlpfc_printf_log() macros before calling lpfc_dmp_dbg(). There is no need\nto take the phba-\u003eport_list_lock within lpfc_dmp_dbg()."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: scsi: lpfc: Mover la comprobaci\u00f3n cfg_log_verbose antes de llamar a lpfc_dmp_dbg() En un intento de registrar el mensaje 0126 con LOG_TRACE_EVENT, el siguiente seguimiento de llamada de bloqueo duro cuelga el sistema. Seguimiento de llamadas: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x32/0x40 lpfc_dmp_dbg.part.32+0x28/0x220 [lpfc] lpfc_cmpl_els_fdisc+0x145/0x460 [lpfc] lpfc_sli_cancel_jobs+0x92/0xd0 [lpfc] lpfc_els_flush_cmd+0x43c/0x670 [lpfc] lpfc_els_flush_all_cmd+0x37/0x60 [lpfc] lpfc_sli4_async_event_proc+0x956/0x1720 [lpfc] lpfc_do_work+0x1485/0x1d70 [lpfc] kthread+0x112/0x130 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40 Kernel panic - not syncing: Hard LOCKUP The same CPU tries to claim the phba-\u0026gt;port_list_lock twice. Move the cfg_log_verbose checks as part of the lpfc_printf_vlog() and lpfc_printf_log() macros before calling lpfc_dmp_dbg(). There is no need to take the phba-\u0026gt;port_list_lock within lpfc_dmp_dbg()."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2022-49542",
"lastModified": "2025-10-01T20:16:39.350",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
},
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2025-02-26T07:01:30.133",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/09c772557a4fd9490fed1bfb133268313ea22213"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/271725e4028559ae7974d762a8467dc9de412f2e"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cc6501afccec55b8b6c90584cbf71f1fefa77d1e"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e294647b1aed4247fe52851f3a3b2b19ae906228"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Modified",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-667"
}
],
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
},
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-667"
}
],
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…