CVE-2024-39502
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: ionic: fix use after netif_napi_del() When queues are started, netif_napi_add() and napi_enable() are called. If there are 4 queues and only 3 queues are used for the current configuration, only 3 queues' napi should be registered and enabled. The ionic_qcq_enable() checks whether the .poll pointer is not NULL for enabling only the using queue' napi. Unused queues' napi will not be registered by netif_napi_add(), so the .poll pointer indicates NULL. But it couldn't distinguish whether the napi was unregistered or not because netif_napi_del() doesn't reset the .poll pointer to NULL. So, ionic_qcq_enable() calls napi_enable() for the queue, which was unregistered by netif_napi_del(). Reproducer: ethtool -L <interface name> rx 1 tx 1 combined 0 ethtool -L <interface name> rx 0 tx 0 combined 1 ethtool -L <interface name> rx 0 tx 0 combined 4 Splat looks like: kernel BUG at net/core/dev.c:6666! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI CPU: 3 PID: 1057 Comm: kworker/3:3 Not tainted 6.10.0-rc2+ #16 Workqueue: events ionic_lif_deferred_work [ionic] RIP: 0010:napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 Code: 48 89 c2 48 83 e2 f6 80 b9 61 09 00 00 00 74 0d 48 83 bf 60 01 00 00 00 74 03 80 ce 01 f0 4f RSP: 0018:ffffb6ed83227d48 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff97560cda0828 RCX: 0000000000000029 RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff97560cda0a28 RBP: ffffb6ed83227d50 R08: 0000000000000400 R09: 0000000000000001 R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: ffff97560ce3c1a0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff975613ba0a20 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff975d5f780000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f8f734ee200 CR3: 0000000103e50000 CR4: 00000000007506f0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? die+0x33/0x90 ? do_trap+0xd9/0x100 ? napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 ? do_error_trap+0x83/0xb0 ? napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 ? napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 ? exc_invalid_op+0x4e/0x70 ? napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20 ? napi_enable+0x3b/0x40 ionic_qcq_enable+0xb7/0x180 [ionic 59bdfc8a035436e1c4224ff7d10789e3f14643f8] ionic_start_queues+0xc4/0x290 [ionic 59bdfc8a035436e1c4224ff7d10789e3f14643f8] ionic_link_status_check+0x11c/0x170 [ionic 59bdfc8a035436e1c4224ff7d10789e3f14643f8] ionic_lif_deferred_work+0x129/0x280 [ionic 59bdfc8a035436e1c4224ff7d10789e3f14643f8] process_one_work+0x145/0x360 worker_thread+0x2bb/0x3d0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0xcc/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
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>= 5.4, < 5.4.279>= 5.5, < 5.10.221>= 5.11, < 5.15.162>= 5.16, < 6.1.95>= 6.2, < 6.6.35>= 6.7, < 6.9.6= 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 · scoped5.4.2795.10.2215.15.162
Linux kernel 5.4.279+ (for 5.4.x), 5.10.221+ (for 5.10.x), 5.15.162+ (for 5.15.x), or 6.1.95+ (for 6.1.x) depending on your current branch
- 1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Check which version branch your kernel falls into (5.4.x, 5.10.x, 5.15.x, or 6.1.x)
- 3. For 5.4.x branch: upgrade to kernel version 5.4.279 or later
- 4. For 5.10.x branch: upgrade to kernel version 5.10.221 or later
- 5. For 5.15.x branch: upgrade to kernel version 5.15.162 or later
- 6. For 6.1.x branch: upgrade to kernel version 6.1.95 or later
- 7. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- 8. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version: `uname -r`
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-2024-39502 — 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-2024-39502 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