KEVWire

Security intelligence, with context.

Response snapshot Oct 30, 2026, 19:11 UTC

Back to the wire
Permalink
VulnerabilityCVE-2022-49961

Linux kernel: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO Precision markers need to be propagated whenever we have an ARG_CONST_* style argument, as the verifier cannot consider imprecise scalars to be equivalent for the purposes of states_equal check when such arguments refine the return value (in this case, set mem_size for PTR_TO_MEM).

At a glance

Exploited
Not known
Severity
7.1 High (CVSS 3.1)
Chance of exploitation
0.3% in the next 30 days
Sources
1 source

What to do

Check the vendor advisory for affected versions and fixes.

Read NVD CVE-2022-49961 (opens a new tab)

What happened

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO

Precision markers need to be propagated whenever we have an ARG_CONST_* style argument, as the verifier cannot consider imprecise scalars to be equivalent for the purposes of states_equal check when such arguments refine the return value (in this case, set mem_size for PTR_TO_MEM).

The resultant mem_size for the R0 is derived from the constant value, and if the verifier incorrectly prunes states considering them equivalent where such arguments exist (by seeing that both registers have reg->precise as false in regsafe), we can end up with invalid programs passing the verifier which can do access beyond what should have been the correct mem_size in that explored state.

Continue reading

To show a concrete example of the problem:

0000000000000000 <prog>: 0: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) 1: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76) 2: r3 = r1 3: r3 += 4 4: if r3 > r2 goto +18 <LBB5_5> 5: w2 = 0 6: *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 7: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) 8: r2 = 1 9: if w1 == 0 goto +1 <LBB5_3> 10: r2 = -1

0000000000000058 <LBB5_3>: 11: r1 = 0 ll 13: r3 = 0 14: call bpf_ringbuf_reserve 15: if r0 == 0 goto +7 <LBB5_5> 16: r1 = r0 17: r1 += 16777215 18: w2 = 0 19: *(u8 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 20: r1 = r0 21: r2 = 0 22: call bpf_ringbuf_submit

00000000000000b8 <LBB5_5>: 23: w0 = 0 24: exit

For the first case, the single line execution's exploration will prune the search at insn 14 for the branch insn 9's second leg as it will be verified first using r2 = -1 (UINT_MAX), while as w1 at insn 9 will always be 0 so at runtime we don't get error for being greater than UINT_MAX/4 from bpf_ringbuf_reserve. The verifier during regsafe just sees reg->precise as false for both r2 registers in both states, hence considers them equal for purposes of states_equal.

If we propagated precise markers using the backtracking support, we would use the precise marking to then ensure that old r2 (UINT_MAX) was within the new r2 (1) and this would never be true, so the verification would rightfully fail.

The end result is that the out of bounds access at instruction 19 would be permitted without this fix.

Note that reg->precise is always set to true when user does not have CAP_BPF (or when subprog count is greater than 1 (i.e. use of any static or global functions)), hence this is only a problem when precision marks need to be explicitly propagated (i.e. privileged users with CAP_BPF).

A simplified test case has been included in the next patch to prevent future regressions.

Scores and how they were measured

CVSS base severity

7.1

Version 3.1As of

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

Measurement source (opens a new tab)

How bad it is if exploited. Not a prediction of exploitation or proof you are exposed.

EPSS probability

0.3%

Scored Percentile 20.1%

Model and measurement source (opens a new tab)

A model's estimate of exploitation in the next 30 days, not certainty or your own risk.

Related technology

Sources

  1. Primary source

    NVD CVE-2022-49961 (opens a new tab)

    NVD record: description, CVSS (the CNA score is preferred), affected products, and publication date. Not evidence of exploitation.

    Published Checked

  2. Primary source

    NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens a new tab)

    The NVD API page that supplied this CVE record.

    Published Date not suppliedChecked

  3. Primary source

    NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens a new tab)

    The NVD API page that supplied this CVE record.

    Published Date not suppliedChecked

  4. Primary source

    NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens a new tab)

    The NVD API page that supplied this CVE record.

    Published Date not suppliedChecked

  5. Primary source

    FIRST measured EPSS score (opens a new tab)

    Measured EPSS probability and percentile for CVE-2022-49961, scored 2026-10-30. This is a model estimate, not proof of exposure.

    Published Checked

Cite this record

For factual claims, cite the primary sources above; cite KEVWire for its compilation, dates, and classifications.

APA

KEVWire. (2026, October 30). Linux kernel: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO (CVE-2022-49961). https://kevwire.com/record/CVE-2022-49961

MLA

"Linux kernel: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO (CVE-2022-49961)." KEVWire, 30 Oct. 2026, kevwire.com/record/CVE-2022-49961.

Chicago

KEVWire. "Linux kernel: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO (CVE-2022-49961)." Last modified October 30, 2026. https://kevwire.com/record/CVE-2022-49961.

Evidence summary (plain text)

Linux kernel: bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO (Jun 18, 2025).
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO

Precision markers need to be propagated whenever we have an ARG_CONST_*
style argument, as the verifier cannot consider imprecise scalars to be
equivalent for the purposes of states_equal check when such arguments
refine the return value (in this case, set mem_size for PTR_TO_MEM).
CVSS 7.1 (version 3.1; evidence as of Oct 30, 2026; https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49961).
EPSS 0.3% for the following 30 days, scored Oct 30, 2026 (https://api.first.org/data/v1/epss?cve=CVE-2022-49961&date=2026-10-30).
Sources:
NVD CVE-2022-49961: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49961
NVD CVE API 2.0: https://services.nvd.nist.gov/rest/json/cves/2.0?lastModStartDate=2026-10-30T13:06:45.042Z&lastModEndDate=2026-10-30T14:50:57.069Z&resultsPerPage=500&startIndex=0
NVD CVE API 2.0: https://services.nvd.nist.gov/rest/json/cves/2.0?lastModStartDate=2026-10-30T12:22:16.957Z&lastModEndDate=2026-10-30T14:05:57.373Z&resultsPerPage=500&startIndex=0
NVD CVE API 2.0: https://services.nvd.nist.gov/rest/json/cves/2.0?lastModStartDate=2026-10-30T11:45:59.009Z&lastModEndDate=2026-10-30T13:20:57.281Z&resultsPerPage=500&startIndex=0
FIRST measured EPSS score: https://api.first.org/data/v1/epss?cve=CVE-2022-49961&date=2026-10-30
Record ID: CVE-2022-49961.
Record origin: Ingested record.
AI evidence: Not assessed.
Known exploitation: Not assessed.
Zero-day status: Not assessed. KEV membership alone does not establish zero-day status.
About this data

This record was ingested from a data source. Retrieved: Oct 30, 2026, 14:52 UTC. Ingestion is not an independent editorial investigation.

NVD status: Modified. Publication in the NVD is not evidence of exploitation.

A CISA KEV listing documents known exploitation, not necessarily a zero-day; absence from the catalog does not prove a vulnerability has never been exploited.

Technology tags indicate possible relevance, not verified exposure. Confirm the affected product, version, and configuration against your own inventory; KEVWire does not scan your systems.

A personal reading checklist on this device, not verified remediation.

Record JSON

Your account

Email alerts

Email alerts are coming as part of KEVWire Premium: join the waitlist. To follow your stack today, use its RSS feed, which honors your filters, or connect an AI agent through the API.

Suggest an improvement

Ideas, missing sources, corrections, and bugs are all welcome. No account needed. Suggestions are reviewed by a person before anything changes.

Record details

Record detail