Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2024-40998

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-07-12
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 6.6.36 / 6.9.7 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all initializations are complete to avoid such problems.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-908

Memory or a resource is used before it has been initialised, so its contents are whatever happened to be there — sometimes leaking earlier data, sometimes values an attacker can influence. Behaviour becomes unpredictable and occasionally exploitable. Remediation is initialising every resource before use and ensuring initialisation happens on all code paths.

General guidance for the use of uninitialized resource 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
Affected:< 6.6.36>= 6.7, < 6.9.7

CVSS 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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 6.6.36 / 6.9.7 or later
Fixed in 6.6.366.9.7
Vendor patch git.kernel.org →
Recommended fix High confidence

Linux Kernel 6.6.36 or later for 6.6.x branch; Linux Kernel 6.9.7 or later for 6.7.x-6.9.x branches

  1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
  2. If running kernel < 6.6.36 (e.g., 6.6.x series below 6.6.36), plan to upgrade to kernel 6.6.36 or later
  3. If running kernel >= 6.7 and < 6.9.7, plan to upgrade to kernel 6.9.7 or later
  4. For distributions with long-term support (e.g., RHEL, Ubuntu LTS, Debian), obtain the vendor-supplied kernel update that includes this fix
  5. After applying the kernel update, reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
  6. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version matches a fixed release
Caveat Kernel upgrades may introduce compatibility changes with existing modules or hardware drivers; test in non-production environment before deployment

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-40998 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-40998 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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