CVE-2024-39463
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: 9p: add missing locking around taking dentry fid list Fix a use-after-free on dentry's d_fsdata fid list when a thread looks up a fid through dentry while another thread unlinks it: UAF thread: refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free. p9_fid_get linux/./include/net/9p/client.h:262 v9fs_fid_find+0x236/0x280 linux/fs/9p/fid.c:129 v9fs_fid_lookup_with_uid linux/fs/9p/fid.c:181 v9fs_fid_lookup+0xbf/0xc20 linux/fs/9p/fid.c:314 v9fs_vfs_getattr_dotl+0xf9/0x360 linux/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c:400 vfs_statx+0xdd/0x4d0 linux/fs/stat.c:248 Freed by: p9_fid_destroy (inlined) p9_client_clunk+0xb0/0xe0 linux/net/9p/client.c:1456 p9_fid_put linux/./include/net/9p/client.h:278 v9fs_dentry_release+0xb5/0x140 linux/fs/9p/vfs_dentry.c:55 v9fs_remove+0x38f/0x620 linux/fs/9p/vfs_inode.c:518 vfs_unlink+0x29a/0x810 linux/fs/namei.c:4335 The problem is that d_fsdata was not accessed under d_lock, because d_release() normally is only called once the dentry is otherwise no longer accessible but since we also call it explicitly in v9fs_remove that lock is required: move the hlist out of the dentry under lock then unref its fids once they are no longer accessible.
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 analysisMemory is used after it has been freed, so its contents — now potentially attacker-controlled — drive the program's behaviour. With careful heap grooming this becomes code execution. The fix requires disciplined ownership of memory and often a targeted rework of the object lifecycle.
General guidance for the use after free 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>= 5.11, < 5.15.168>= 5.16, < 6.1.94>= 6.2, < 6.6.34>= 6.7, < 6.9.5= 6.10CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped5.15.1686.1.946.6.34
Upgrade to kernel 5.15.168, 6.1.94, 6.6.34, or 6.9.5 (or later stable releases within your major version branch)
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version`
- Determine which stable kernel branch your current version belongs to based on the affected version ranges (5.15.x, 6.1.x, 6.6.x, or 6.7-6.9.x)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to the appropriate fixed release: 5.15.168 or later for 5.15.x, 6.1.94 or later for 6.1.x, 6.6.34 or later for 6.6.x, or 6.9.5 or later for 6.7-6.9.x
- Reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- Verify the kernel version after reboot using `uname -r` to confirm the fix is applied
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-2024-39463 — 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-2024-39463 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