CVE-2022-49658: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee re...

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0 ---truncated---

Metrics

CVSS 3.1

5.5/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS Probability

0.27%

18.2th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

Vendor	Product	Versions	Update
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 4.14, < 5.10.130	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 5.11, < 5.15.54	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	>= 5.16, < 5.18.11	—
Linux	Linux Kernel	5.19	Rc1

References

Timeline

Published: Feb 26, 2025
Last Modified: Jun 17, 2026
Status: Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2022-49658?

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0 ---truncated---

How severe is CVE-2022-49658?

CVE-2022-49658 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.27% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

How do I fix CVE-2022-49658?

Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.