Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2024-35247
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 the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fpga: region: add owner module and take its refcount The current implementation of the fpga region assumes that the low-level module registers a driver for the parent device and uses its owner pointer to take the module's refcount. This approach is problematic since it can lead to a null pointer dereference while attempting to get the region during programming if the parent device does not have a driver. To address this problem, add a module owner pointer to the fpga_region struct and use it to take the module's refcount. Modify the functions for registering a region to take an additional owner module parameter and rename them to avoid conflicts. Use the old function names for helper macros that automatically set the module that registers the region as the owner. This ensures compatibility with existing low-level control modules and reduces the chances of registering a region without setting the owner. Also, update the documentation to keep it consistent with the new interface for registering an fpga region.
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 analysisThe code follows a pointer that is null, crashing the process. An attacker who can reliably trigger it turns the crash into a denial of service. The fix is checking for null before use and handling the failure path gracefully.
General guidance for the null pointer dereference class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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 data
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 4.10, < 5.10.219>= 5.11, < 5.15.161>= 5.16, < 6.1.93>= 6.2, < 6.6.33>= 6.7, < 6.9.4CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
dbcve · scoped5.10.2195.15.1616.1.93
5.10.219, 5.15.161, 6.1.93, or 6.6.33 (depending on which kernel branch is in use)
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version`
- Determine which kernel branch your version belongs to (4.10+, 5.10+, 5.11+, 5.15+, 5.16+, 6.1+, 6.2+, or 6.6+)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to one of the following fixed versions based on your current branch:
- - For 5.10.x branches: upgrade to 5.10.219 or later
- - For 5.11-5.14.x branches: upgrade to 5.15.161 or later
- - For 5.15.x branches: upgrade to 5.15.161 or later
- - For 5.16-6.0.x branches: upgrade to 6.1.93 or later
- - For 6.1.x branches: upgrade to 6.1.93 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-35247 — 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-2024-35247 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