CVE-2022-49789

HIGHNVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

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, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2025-12993 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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
7.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity78% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
10th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

May 1, 2025

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Aug 4, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d2c7d8f58e9cde8ac8d1f75e9d66c2a813ffe0ab
Web page

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/90a49a6b015fa439cd62e45121390284c125a91f
Web page

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1bf8ed585501bb2dd0b5f67c824eab45adfbdccd
Web page

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/11edbdee4399401f533adda9bffe94567aa08b96
Web page

scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0954256e970ecf371b03a6c9af2cf91b9c4085ff

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
linuxKernel @ 5.4.225 (fixes >=2.6.34)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 5.10.92-2 (22 versions)
  • every version up to 5.10.158-1: fixed in 5.10.158-1
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.0.10-1: fixed in 6.0.10-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.0.10-1: fixed in 6.0.10-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.0.10-1: fixed in 6.0.10-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 37× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 97 of 195 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 3 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 98 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  7. 2026-10-28 15:34 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-28 15:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  9. 2026-10-27 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 17:54 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-25 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  13. 2026-10-24 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  14. 2026-10-22 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  15. 2026-10-21 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  16. 2026-10-21 05:35 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-21 05:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  18. 2026-10-20 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  20. 2026-10-19 11:55 UTCOSV refresh
  21. 2026-10-18 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 08:19 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  24. 2026-10-15 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  25. 2026-10-14 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
Show 72 more
  1. 2026-10-13 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  2. 2026-10-12 18:41 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-12 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  4. 2026-10-11 22:05 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  6. 2026-10-10 19:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  7. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  8. 2026-10-08 17:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  9. 2026-10-07 23:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  10. 2026-10-06 15:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  11. 2026-10-05 17:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  12. 2026-10-04 23:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  13. 2026-10-03 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  14. 2026-09-30 16:12 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  16. 2026-09-27 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  17. 2026-09-26 19:03 UTCOSV refresh
  18. 2026-09-26 15:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  19. 2026-09-26 00:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  20. 2026-09-24 14:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  21. 2026-09-23 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  22. 2026-09-20 20:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  23. 2026-09-16 14:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  24. 2026-09-16 05:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  25. 2026-09-15 03:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  26. 2026-09-13 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  27. 2026-09-11 14:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  28. 2026-09-11 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  29. 2026-09-08 21:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  30. 2026-09-07 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  31. 2026-09-07 04:18 UTCOSV refresh
  32. 2026-09-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  33. 2026-09-05 15:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  34. 2026-09-04 13:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  35. 2026-09-04 05:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  36. 2026-09-02 14:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  37. 2026-09-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  38. 2026-08-30 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  39. 2026-08-30 01:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  40. 2026-08-28 21:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  41. 2026-08-26 14:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  42. 2026-08-21 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  43. 2026-08-20 22:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  44. 2026-08-20 14:01 UTCOSV refresh
  45. 2026-08-19 17:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  46. 2026-08-18 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  47. 2026-08-17 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  48. 2026-08-16 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  49. 2026-08-16 02:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  50. 2026-08-15 01:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  51. 2026-08-13 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  52. 2026-08-12 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  53. 2026-08-09 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  54. 2026-08-08 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  55. 2026-08-07 16:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  56. 2026-08-06 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  57. 2026-08-05 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  58. 2026-08-05 09:29 UTCEG score recompute
  59. 2026-08-05 09:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  60. 2026-08-04 15:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  61. 2026-08-04 11:05 UTCEG score recompute
  62. 2026-08-04 11:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  63. 2026-08-04 10:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  64. 2026-08-04 09:44 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-08-04 09:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j9f5-mv8w-78qj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  66. 2026-08-03 10:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  67. 2026-08-02 02:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  68. 2026-08-01 04:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  69. 2026-07-30 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  70. 2026-07-30 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  71. 2026-07-28 15:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  72. 2026-07-26 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2022-49789?
CVE-2022-49789 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was 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 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' to cache the FSF request ID when sending a new FSF request. This is used in case the sending fails…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2022-49789 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2022-49789 was published on May 1, 2025. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 5, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2022-49789 actively exploited?
CVE-2022-49789 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (10th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
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?
A fix for CVE-2022-49789 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by 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.