CVE-2024-41009
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: bpf: Fix overrunning reservations in ringbuf The BPF ring buffer internally is implemented as a power-of-2 sized circular buffer, with two logical and ever-increasing counters: consumer_pos is the consumer counter to show which logical position the consumer consumed the data, and producer_pos which is the producer counter denoting the amount of data reserved by all producers. Each time a record is reserved, the producer that "owns" the record will successfully advance producer counter. In user space each time a record is read, the consumer of the data advanced the consumer counter once it finished processing. Both counters are stored in separate pages so that from user space, the producer counter is read-only and the consumer counter is read-write. One aspect that simplifies and thus speeds up the implementation of both producers and consumers is how the data area is mapped twice contiguously back-to-back in the virtual memory, allowing to not take any special measures for samples that have to wrap around at the end of the circular buffer data area, because the next page after the last data page would be first data page again, and thus the sample will still appear completely contiguous in virtual memory. Each record has a struct bpf_ringbuf_hdr { u32 len; u32 pg_off; } header for book-keeping the length and offset, and is inaccessible to the BPF program. Helpers like bpf_ringbuf_reserve() return `(void *)hdr + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ` for the BPF program to use. Bing-Jhong and Muhammad reported that it is however possible to make a second allocated memory chunk overlapping with the first chunk and as a result, the BPF program is now able to edit first chunk's header. For example, consider the creation of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF map with size of 0x4000. Next, the consumer_pos is modified to 0x3000 /before/ a call to bpf_ringbuf_reserve() is made. This will allocate a chunk A, which is in [0x0,0x3008], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x8,0x3008]. Now, lets allocate a chunk B with size 0x3000. This will succeed because consumer_pos was edited ahead of time to pass the `new_prod_pos - cons_pos > rb->mask` check. Chunk B will be in range [0x3008,0x6010], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x3010,0x6010]. Due to the ring buffer memory layout mentioned earlier, the ranges [0x0,0x4000] and [0x4000,0x8000] point to the same data pages. This means that chunk B at [0x4000,0x4008] is chunk A's header. bpf_ringbuf_submit() / bpf_ringbuf_discard() use the header's pg_off to then locate the bpf_ringbuf itself via bpf_ringbuf_restore_from_rec(). Once chunk B modified chunk A's header, then bpf_ringbuf_commit() refers to the wrong page and could cause a crash. Fix it by calculating the oldest pending_pos and check whether the range from the oldest outstanding record to the newest would span beyond the ring buffer size. If that is the case, then reject the request. We've tested with the ring buffer benchmark in BPF selftests (./benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh) before/after the fix and while it seems a bit slower on some benchmarks, it is still not significantly enough to matter.
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 application allocates memory, connections, or handles in response to a request without enforcing any cap, so a modest amount of malicious traffic exhausts the resource and denies service to everyone else. The fix is enforcing quotas, limits, and timeouts on what any single request or client can consume.
General guidance for the resource allocation without limits 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>= 5.8, < 6.1.97>= 6.2, < 6.6.37>= 6.7, < 6.9.8CVSS 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 · scoped6.1.976.6.376.9.8
Linux Kernel 6.1.97+ / 6.6.37+ / 6.9.8+ depending on current branch
- Identify the currently running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version branch you are on based on the running kernel (e.g., 6.1.x, 6.6.x, 6.9.x)
- For systems running kernel >= 5.8 and < 6.1.97: Upgrade to kernel version 6.1.97 or later
- For systems running kernel >= 6.2 and < 6.6.37: Upgrade to kernel version 6.6.37 or later
- For systems running kernel >= 6.7 and < 6.9.8: Upgrade to kernel version 6.9.8 or later
- After upgrading, reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version matches one of the fixed releases
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-2024-41009 — 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-2024-41009 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