Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2024-47741

HIGH · 7.0 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-10-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 6.6.54 / 6.10.13 or later.
See remediation →
72/100
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: btrfs: fix race setting file private on concurrent lseek using same fd When doing concurrent lseek(2) system calls against the same file descriptor, using multiple threads belonging to the same process, we have a short time window where a race happens and can result in a memory leak. The race happens like this: 1) A program opens a file descriptor for a file and then spawns two threads (with the pthreads library for example), lets call them task A and task B; 2) Task A calls lseek with SEEK_DATA or SEEK_HOLE and ends up at file.c:find_desired_extent() while holding a read lock on the inode; 3) At the start of find_desired_extent(), it extracts the file's private_data pointer into a local variable named 'private', which has a value of NULL; 4) Task B also calls lseek with SEEK_DATA or SEEK_HOLE, locks the inode in shared mode and enters file.c:find_desired_extent(), where it also extracts file->private_data into its local variable 'private', which has a NULL value; 5) Because it saw a NULL file private, task A allocates a private structure and assigns to the file structure; 6) Task B also saw a NULL file private so it also allocates its own file private and then assigns it to the same file structure, since both tasks are using the same file descriptor. At this point we leak the private structure allocated by task A. Besides the memory leak, there's also the detail that both tasks end up using the same cached state record in the private structure (struct btrfs_file_private::llseek_cached_state), which can result in a use-after-free problem since one task can free it while the other is still using it (only one task took a reference count on it). Also, sharing the cached state is not a good idea since it could result in incorrect results in the future - right now it should not be a problem because it end ups being used only in extent-io-tree.c:count_range_bits() where we do range validation before using the cached state. Fix this by protecting the private assignment and check of a file while holding the inode's spinlock and keep track of the task that allocated the private, so that it's used only by that task in order to prevent user-after-free issues with the cached state record as well as potentially using it incorrectly in the future.

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-362

Two operations that should be atomic can interleave, so an attacker who wins a narrow timing window reaches an inconsistent, exploitable state. These bugs are subtle and easy to miss in review. Fixing them properly means correct locking or atomic operations around the shared resource.

General guidance for the race condition 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:>= 6.2, < 6.6.54>= 6.7, < 6.10.13>= 6.11, < 6.11.2

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
High
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 6.6.54 / 6.10.13 / 6.11.2 or later
Fixed in 6.6.546.10.136.11.2
Vendor patch git.kernel.org →
Recommended fix High confidence

Linux Kernel 6.6.54 (for 6.2-6.6.x), 6.10.13 (for 6.7-6.10.x), or 6.11.2 (for 6.11.x) - choose the appropriate branch based on your current version

  1. 1. Identify current kernel version: `uname -r`
  2. 2. Determine which version branch your kernel belongs to (6.2-6.6.x, 6.7-6.10.x, or 6.11.x)
  3. 3. For kernels 6.2 <= version < 6.6.54: upgrade to kernel 6.6.54 or later
  4. 4. For kernels 6.7 <= version < 6.10.13: upgrade to kernel 6.10.13 or later
  5. 5. For kernels 6.11 <= version < 6.11.2: upgrade to kernel 6.11.2 or later
  6. 6. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
  7. 7. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version: `uname -r` and/or checking for commit 33d1310d4496e904123dab9c28b2d8d2c1800f97 in the kernel source if building custom kernels
Caveat Kernel upgrades may require rebooting the system and could have compatibility implications with existing user-space applications or custom kernel modules; ensure backup and test in non-production environment first

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 $1,950. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-47741 — 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-2024-47741 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