Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2024-41012
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: filelock: Remove locks reliably when fcntl/close race is detected When fcntl_setlk() races with close(), it removes the created lock with do_lock_file_wait(). However, LSMs can allow the first do_lock_file_wait() that created the lock while denying the second do_lock_file_wait() that tries to remove the lock. Separately, posix_lock_file() could also fail to remove a lock due to GFP_KERNEL allocation failure (when splitting a range in the middle). After the bug has been triggered, use-after-free reads will occur in lock_get_status() when userspace reads /proc/locks. This can likely be used to read arbitrary kernel memory, but can't corrupt kernel memory. Fix it by calling locks_remove_posix() instead, which is designed to reliably get rid of POSIX locks associated with the given file and files_struct and is also used by filp_flush().
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
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 2.6.13, < 4.19.319>= 4.20, < 5.4.281>= 5.5, < 5.10.223>= 5.11, < 5.15.164>= 5.16, < 6.1.101>= 6.2, < 6.6.42>= 6.7, < 6.9.9= 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 · scoped4.19.3195.4.2815.10.223
Linux Kernel 4.19.319, 5.4.281, 5.10.223, or 5.15.164 (depending on which branch you are on)
- Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which affected version range your kernel falls into (4.19.x, 5.4.x, 5.10.x, or 5.15.x)
- Obtain a kernel upgrade to a version >= the fixed release for your branch: 4.19.319, 5.4.281, 5.10.223, or 5.15.164 respectively
- Apply the vendor patch commit 3cad1bc010416c6dd780643476bc59ed742436b9 if building a custom kernel, which changes the fcntl/close race handling to use locks_remove_posix() instead of do_lock_file_wait()
- Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking that /proc/locks no longer triggers use-after-free reads
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-2024-41012 — 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-2024-41012 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