Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.28% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2022-49171High confidence
ext4: don't BUG if someone dirty pages without asking ext4 first
Linux · Linux
5.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Low, lowered one band.downgradedsince 11 May 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Linux Linux and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Canonical Ubuntu Security: 1 affected package state with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 5.17.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 5.17.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 5.17.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 5.17.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-raspi-realtime | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't BUG if someone dirty pages without asking ext4 first [un]pin_user_pages_remote is dirtying pages without properly warning the file system in advance. A related race was noted by Jan Kara in 2018[1]; however, more recently instead of it being a very hard-to-hit race, it could be reliably triggered by process_vm_writev(2) which was discovered by Syzbot[2]. This is technically a bug in mm/gup.c, but arguably ext4 is fragile in that if some other kernel subsystem dirty pages without properly notifying the file system using page_mkwrite(), ext4 will BUG, while other file systems will not BUG (although data will still be lost). So instead of crashing with a BUG, issue a warning (since there may be potential data loss) and just mark the page as clean to avoid unprivileged denial of service attacks until the problem can be properly fixed. More discussion and background can be found in the thread starting at [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20180103100430.GE4911@quack2.suse.cz [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Yg0m6IjcNmfaSokM@google.com
What
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't BUG if someone dirty pages without asking ext4 first [un]pin_user_pages_remote is dirtying pages without properly warning the file system in advance. A related race was noted by Jan Kara in 2018[1]; however, more recently instead of it being a very hard-to-hit race, it could be reliably triggered by process_vm_writev(2) which was discovered by Syzbot[2]. This is technically a bug in mm/gup.c, but arguably ext4 is fragile in that if some other kernel subsystem dirty pages without properly notifying the file system using page_mkwrite(), ext4 will BUG, while other file systems will not BUG (although data will still be lost). So instead of crashing with a BUG, issue a warning (since there may be potential data loss) and just mark the page as clean to avoid unprivileged denial of service attacks until the problem can be properly fixed. More discussion and background can be found in the thread starting at [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20180103100430.GE4911@quack2.suse.cz [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Yg0m6IjcNmfaSokM@google.com
Why
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
What
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't BUG if someone dirty pages without asking ext4 first [un]pin_user_pages_remote is dirtying pages without properly warning the file system in advance. A related race was noted by Jan Kara in 2018[1]; however, more recently instead of it being a very hard-to-hit race, it could be reliably triggered by process_vm_writev(2) which was discovered by Syzbot[2]. This is technically a bug in mm/gup.c, but arguably ext4 is fragile in that if some other kernel subsystem dirty pages without properly notifying the file system using page_mkwrite(), ext4 will BUG, while other file systems will not BUG (although data will still be lost). So instead of crashing with a BUG, issue a warning (since there may be potential data loss) and just mark the page as clean to avoid unprivileged denial of service attacks until the problem can be properly fixed. More discussion and background can be found in the thread starting at [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20180103100430.GE4911@quack2.suse.cz [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Yg0m6IjcNmfaSokM@google.com
Why
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Reachable Assertion → disrupt the affected service
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-617 ↗
CWE-617: Reachable Assertion. The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 26 Feb 2025 · Last source change 11 May 2026, 18:54 UTC · CWE-617 · Reachable Assertion
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-55054
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.