[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"repo-stars":3,"vuln-DEBIAN-CVE-2022-49272":6},{"stargazers_count":4,"fetched_at":5},7,"2026-06-04T08:53:30.047Z",{"id":7,"descriptions":8,"cisa":9,"weaknesses":10,"exploits":11,"aliases":12,"duplicate_of":9,"upstream":13,"downstream":16,"duplicates":17,"related":18,"reserved_at":9,"published_at":19,"modified_at":20,"state":9,"summary":21,"references_raw":23,"kevs":30,"epss":9,"epss_history":31,"metrics":32,"affected":39},"DEBIAN-CVE-2022-49272","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  ALSA: pcm: Fix potential AB/BA lock with buffer_mutex and mmap_lock  syzbot caught a potential deadlock between the PCM runtime->buffer_mutex and the mm->mmap_lock.  It was brought by the recent fix to cover the racy read/write and other ioctls, and in that commit, I overlooked a (hopefully only) corner case that may take the revert lock, namely, the OSS mmap.  The OSS mmap operation exceptionally allows to re-configure the parameters inside the OSS mmap syscall, where mm->mmap_mutex is already held.  Meanwhile, the copy_from/to_user calls at read/write operations also take the mm->mmap_lock internally, hence it may lead to a AB/BA deadlock.  A similar problem was already seen in the past and we fixed it with a refcount (in commit b248371628aa).  The former fix covered only the call paths with OSS read/write and OSS ioctls, while we need to cover the concurrent access via both ALSA and OSS APIs now.  This patch addresses the problem above by replacing the buffer_mutex lock in the read/write operations with a refcount similar as we've used for OSS.  The new field, runtime->buffer_accessing, keeps the number of concurrent read/write operations.  Unlike the former buffer_mutex protection, this protects only around the copy_from/to_user() calls; the other codes are basically protected by the PCM stream lock.  The refcount can be a negative, meaning blocked by the ioctls.  If a negative value is seen, the read/write aborts with -EBUSY.  In the ioctl side, OTOH, they check this refcount, too, and set to a negative value for blocking unless it's already being accessed.",null,[],[],[],[14],{"_key":15},"CVE-2022-49272",[],[],[],"2025-02-26T07:01:04.097Z","2026-04-28T20:25:07.468008Z",{"cisa_kev":22,"cisa_ransomware":22,"cisa_vendor":9,"epss_severity":9,"epss_score":9,"severity":9,"severity_score":9,"severity_version":9,"severity_source":9,"severity_vector":9,"severity_status":9},false,[24],{"url":25,"sources":26,"tags":28},"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2022-49272",[27],"osv_debian",[29],"Advisory",[],[],[33],{"source":27,"cvss_v2_0":9,"cvss_v3_0":9,"cvss_v3_1":34,"cvss_v4_0":9},{"baseScore":35,"baseSeverity":9,"vectorString":36,"impactScore":37,"exploitabilityScore":38},5.5,"CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",6,4.6,[40],{"ecosystem":41,"name":42,"vendor":43,"product":42,"cpe_part":9,"purl_type":44,"purl_namespace":43,"purl_name":42,"source":9,"versions":45},"Debian","linux","debian","deb",[46,52,55,56],{"version":47,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":50,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9},"lt5_10_113_1",true,"ecosystem","5.10.113-1","excluding",{"version":53,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":54,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9},"lt5_17_3_1","5.17.3-1",{"version":53,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":54,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9},{"version":53,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":54,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9}]