Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2024-46846
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: spi: rockchip: Resolve unbalanced runtime PM / system PM handling Commit e882575efc77 ("spi: rockchip: Suspend and resume the bus during NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM ops") stopped respecting runtime PM status and simply disabled clocks unconditionally when suspending the system. This causes problems when the device is already runtime suspended when we go to sleep -- in which case we double-disable clocks and produce a WARNing. Switch back to pm_runtime_force_{suspend,resume}(), because that still seems like the right thing to do, and the aforementioned commit makes no explanation why it stopped using it. Also, refactor some of the resume() error handling, because it's not actually a good idea to re-disable clocks on failure.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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
>= 5.18, < 6.1.110>= 6.2, < 6.6.51>= 6.7, < 6.10.10= 6.11CVSS 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 · scoped6.1.1106.6.516.10.10
6.1.110+ / 6.6.51+ / 6.10.10+ (depending on your branch)
- Identify your current kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Determine which version branch you are on (6.1.x, 6.2.x, 6.7.x, or 6.11)
- For systems on 6.1.x: Upgrade to kernel version 6.1.110 or later
- For systems on 6.2.x: Upgrade to kernel version 6.6.51 or later (note: 6.2 is end-of-life, consider moving to 6.6 LTS
- For systems on 6.7.x: Upgrade to kernel version 6.10.10 or later
- For systems on 6.11: This version is affected with no listed stable fix; consider upgrading to 6.12 or later once available, or downgrading to a fixed version branch
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-2024-46846 — 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-2024-46846 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