CVE-2024-50019
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: kthread: unpark only parked kthread Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state. However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked. As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread triggers such a warning: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525 <TASK> kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707 destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810 wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257 netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693 default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769 ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline] cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640 process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline] process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312 worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393 kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389 ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 </TASK> Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread.
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>= 5.11, < 5.15.168>= 5.16, < 6.1.113>= 6.2, < 6.6.57>= 6.7, < 6.11.4= 6.12CVSS 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 · scoped5.15.1686.1.1136.6.57
5.15.168+ / 6.1.113+ / 6.6.57+ / 6.11.4+ (choose the appropriate branch for your distribution)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a fixed version: 5.15.168 or later, 6.1.113 or later, 6.6.57 or later, or 6.11.4 or later
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-2024-50019 — 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-2024-50019 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