CVE-2024-41053
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: scsi: ufs: core: Fix ufshcd_abort_one racing issue When ufshcd_abort_one is racing with the completion ISR, the completed tag of the request's mq_hctx pointer will be set to NULL by ISR. Return success when request is completed by ISR because ufshcd_abort_one does not need to do anything. The racing flow is: Thread A ufshcd_err_handler step 1 ... ufshcd_abort_one ufshcd_try_to_abort_task ufshcd_cmd_inflight(true) step 3 ufshcd_mcq_req_to_hwq blk_mq_unique_tag rq->mq_hctx->queue_num step 5 Thread B ufs_mtk_mcq_intr(cq complete ISR) step 2 scsi_done ... __blk_mq_free_request rq->mq_hctx = NULL; step 4 Below is KE back trace. ufshcd_try_to_abort_task: cmd at tag 41 not pending in the device. ufshcd_try_to_abort_task: cmd at tag=41 is cleared. Aborting tag 41 / CDB 0x28 succeeded Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000194 pc : [0xffffffddd7a79bf8] blk_mq_unique_tag+0x8/0x14 lr : [0xffffffddd6155b84] ufshcd_mcq_req_to_hwq+0x1c/0x40 [ufs_mediatek_mod_ise] do_mem_abort+0x58/0x118 el1_abort+0x3c/0x5c el1h_64_sync_handler+0x54/0x90 el1h_64_sync+0x68/0x6c blk_mq_unique_tag+0x8/0x14 ufshcd_err_handler+0xae4/0xfa8 [ufs_mediatek_mod_ise] process_one_work+0x208/0x4fc worker_thread+0x228/0x438 kthread+0x104/0x1d4 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
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 code follows a pointer that is null, crashing the process. An attacker who can reliably trigger it turns the crash into a denial of service. The fix is checking for null before use and handling the failure path gracefully.
General guidance for the null pointer dereference 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>= 6.6.5, < 6.6.41>= 6.7, < 6.9.10CVSS 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
- 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 · scoped6.6.416.9.10
Linux Kernel 6.6.41 or 6.9.10 (depending on which branch you are on)
- Upgrade Linux Kernel to version 6.6.41 or later for 6.6.x branch
- Upgrade Linux Kernel to version 6.9.10 or later for 6.7.x through 6.9.x branches
- Alternatively, apply the vendor patch commit 74736103fb4123c71bf11fb7a6abe7c884c5269e to the affected kernel source and rebuild
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-2024-41053 — 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-2024-41053 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