CVE-2024-36002
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: dpll: fix dpll_pin_on_pin_register() for multiple parent pins In scenario where pin is registered with multiple parent pins via dpll_pin_on_pin_register(..), all belonging to the same dpll device. A second call to dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister(..) would cause a call trace, as it tries to use already released registration resources (due to fix introduced in b446631f355e). In this scenario pin was registered twice, so resources are not yet expected to be release until each registered pin/pin pair is unregistered. Currently, the following crash/call trace is produced when ice driver is removed on the system with installed E810T NIC which includes dpll device: WARNING: CPU: 51 PID: 9155 at drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c:809 dpll_pin_ops+0x20/0x30 RIP: 0010:dpll_pin_ops+0x20/0x30 Call Trace: ? __warn+0x7f/0x130 ? dpll_pin_ops+0x20/0x30 dpll_msg_add_pin_freq+0x37/0x1d0 dpll_cmd_pin_get_one+0x1c0/0x400 ? __nlmsg_put+0x63/0x80 dpll_pin_event_send+0x93/0x140 dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister+0x3f/0x100 ice_dpll_deinit_pins+0xa1/0x230 [ice] ice_remove+0xf1/0x210 [ice] Fix by adding a parent pointer as a cookie when creating a registration, also when searching for it. For the regular pins pass NULL, this allows to create separated registration for each parent the pin is registered with.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 6.7.11, < 6.8>= 6.8.2, < 6.8.9= 6.9CVSS 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 · scoped6.86.8.9
Linux Kernel >= 6.8.9, >= 6.9.1, or >= 6.10
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.8.9 or later, or version 6.9.1 or later, or version 6.10 or later
- After kernel upgrade, reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking that `dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister()` no longer causes crashes when called multiple times with the same parent pin
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-2024-36002 — 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-2024-36002 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