CVE-2022-49789

HIGHNVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2025-05-01. NVD baseline CVSS 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
7.8
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: 0%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

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

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails

We used to use the wrong type of integer in 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' to cache the FSF request ID when sending a new FSF request. This is used in case the sending fails and we need to remove the request from our internal hash table again (so we don't keep an invalid reference and use it when we free the request again).

In 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' we used to cache the ID as 'int' (signed and 32 bit wide), but the rest of the zfcp code (and the firmware specification) handles the ID as 'unsigned long'/'u64' (unsigned and 64 bit wide [s390x ELF ABI]). For one this has the obvious problem that when the ID grows past 32 bit (this can happen reasonably fast) it is truncated to 32 bit when storing it in the cache variable and so doesn't match the original ID anymore. The second less obvious problem is that even when the original ID has not yet grown past 32 bit, as soon as the 32nd bit is set in the original ID (0x80000000 = 2'147'483'648) we will have a mismatch when we cast it back to 'unsigned long'. As the cached variable is of a signed type, the compiler will choose a sign-extending instruction to load the 32 bit variable into a 64 bit register (e.g.: 'lgf %r11,188(%r15)'). So once we pass the cached variable into 'zfcp_reqlist_find_rm()' to remove the request again all the leading zeros will be flipped to ones to extend the sign and won't match the original ID anymore (this has been observed in practice).

If we can't successfully remove the request from the hash table again after 'zfcp_qdio_send()' fails (this happens regularly when zfcp cannot notify the adapter about new work because the adapter is already gone during e.g. a ChpID toggle) we will end up with a double free. We unconditionally free the request in the calling function when 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' fails, but because the request is still in the hash table we end up with a stale memory reference, and once the zfcp adapter is either reset during recovery or shutdown we end up freeing the same memory twice.

The resulting stack traces vary depending on the kernel and have no direct correlation to the place where the bug occurs. Here are three examples that have been seen in practice:

list_del corruption. next->prev should be 00000001b9d13800, but was 00000000dead4ead. (next=00000001bd131a00) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:62! monitor event: 0040 ilc:2 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: ... CPU: 9 PID: 1617 Comm: zfcperp0.0.1740 Kdump: loaded Hardware name: ... Krnl PSW : 0704d00180000000 00000003cbeea1f8 (__list_del_entry_valid+0x98/0x140) R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:1 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3 Krnl GPRS: 00000000916d12f1 0000000080000000 000000000000006d 00000003cb665cd6 0000000000000001 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000d28d21e8 00000000d3844000 00000380099efd28 00000001bd131a00 00000001b9d13800 00000000d3290100 0000000000000000 00000003cbeea1f4 00000380099efc70 Krnl Code: 00000003cbeea1e8: c020004f68a7 larl %r2,00000003cc8d7336 00000003cbeea1ee: c0e50027fd65 brasl %r14,00000003cc3e9cb8 #00000003cbeea1f4: af000000 mc 0,0 >00000003cbeea1f8: c02000920440 larl %r2,00000003cd12aa78 00000003cbeea1fe: c0e500289c25 brasl %r14,00000003cc3fda48 00000003cbeea204: b9040043 lgr %r4,%r3 00000003cbeea208: b9040051 lgr %r5,%r1 00000003cbeea20c: b9040032 lgr %r3,%r2 Call Trace: [<00000003cbeea1f8>] __list_del_entry_valid+0x98/0x140 ([<00000003cbeea1f4>] __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0x140) [<000003ff7ff502fe>] zfcp_fsf_req_dismiss_all+0xde/0x150 [zfcp] [<000003ff7ff49cd0>] zfcp_erp_strategy_do_action+0x160/0x280 [zfcp] ---truncated---

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8(medium)
EG Risk
40(Track)
EG Risk 40/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity78% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS
8.3%
KEV
Not listed

Published

May 1, 2025

Last Modified

November 7, 2025

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 16× in last 7d / 50× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-07-23 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-23 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-23 02:16 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-07-22 23:04 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-07-22 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-22 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-20 17:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-19 14:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-19 14:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-16 17:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-15 16:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-15 16:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-15 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-15 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-13 06:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-13 06:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-12 05:44 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 70 more
  1. 2026-07-11 08:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-11 08:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-09 19:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-08 15:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-07 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-07 03:21 UTCOSV refresh
  7. 2026-07-06 16:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-06 02:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-05 02:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-04 06:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-01 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-06-30 23:20 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-06-29 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-28 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-06-28 04:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-28 04:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-24 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-24 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-22 14:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  32. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-18 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-18 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-18 14:14 UTCOSV refresh
  36. 2026-06-17 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-17 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-15 17:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-14 23:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-12 23:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-12 23:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-11 13:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-06-11 13:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-08 14:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-08 14:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-07 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-06-07 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  57. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-06-04 13:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-06-02 20:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-06-02 20:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-06-01 13:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-06-01 13:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-05-31 22:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-05-31 22:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  66. 2026-05-31 00:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  67. 2026-05-31 00:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  68. 2026-05-30 06:31 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-05-30 06:31 UTCGHSA enrichment
  70. 2026-05-29 13:43 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2022-49789?
CVE-2022-49789 is a high vulnerability published on May 1, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails We used to use the wrong type of integer in 'zfcpfsfreq_send()' to cache the FSF request ID when sending a new FSF request. This is used in case the sending fails and…
When was CVE-2022-49789 disclosed?
CVE-2022-49789 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on May 1, 2025, with the most recent update on November 7, 2025. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2022-49789 actively exploited?
CVE-2022-49789 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 8.3% percentile likelihood of exploitation in the next 30 days — higher percentiles indicate greater predicted risk.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2022-49789?
CVE-2022-49789 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.8 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2022-49789?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2022-49789, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2022-49789

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2022-49789?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.