CVE-2024-29742
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn apply_minlock_constraint of dvfs.c, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the apply_minlock_constraint function in dvfs.c within the Linux kernel. The vulnerability is caused by a missing bounds check, allowing a local attacker to potentially read sensitive information from kernel memory without elevated privileges or user interaction.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check the Android kernel versionRun 'uname -r' or check Settings > About Phone > Kernel Version to obtain the running kernel versionAffected if The kernel version is unpatched and falls within the range containing the vulnerable apply_minlock_constraint function in dvfs.c
-
Identify if the dvfs driver is presentCheck for dvfs-related kernel modules or drivers by running 'ls -la /sys/module/ | grep dvfs' or searching for dvfs.c in /proc/kallsymsAffected if The dvfs driver/module is loaded and the kernel lacks the bounds check patch for apply_minlock_constraint
-
Verify the apply_minlock_constraint function existsSearch for the function symbol in the kernel by running 'grep -i apply_minlock_constraint /proc/kallsyms' or examining the kernel symbol tableAffected if The function is present in the running kernel without the security fix applied
-
Check for vendor security patch levelGo to Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' to see the installed Android security patch dateAffected if The security patch level is older than the vendor release that addresses CVE-2024-29742
A user is affected if their Android device runs a kernel with the vulnerable dvfs.c apply_minlock_constraint function and lacks the corresponding security patch.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply the vendor-provided Linux kernel security patch that implements proper bounds checking in the apply_minlock_constraint function in dvfs.c.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,472.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-29742 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-29742 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data