CVE-2024-50182
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: secretmem: disable memfd_secret() if arch cannot set direct map Return -ENOSYS from memfd_secret() syscall if !can_set_direct_map(). This is the case for example on some arm64 configurations, where marking 4k PTEs in the direct map not present can only be done if the direct map is set up at 4k granularity in the first place (as ARM's break-before-make semantics do not easily allow breaking apart large/gigantic pages). More precisely, on arm64 systems with !can_set_direct_map(), set_direct_map_invalid_noflush() is a no-op, however it returns success (0) instead of an error. This means that memfd_secret will seemingly "work" (e.g. syscall succeeds, you can mmap the fd and fault in pages), but it does not actually achieve its goal of removing its memory from the direct map. Note that with this patch, memfd_secret() will start erroring on systems where can_set_direct_map() returns false (arm64 with CONFIG_RODATA_FULL_DEFAULT_ENABLED=n, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=n and CONFIG_KFENCE=n), but that still seems better than the current silent failure. Since CONFIG_RODATA_FULL_DEFAULT_ENABLED defaults to 'y', most arm64 systems actually have a working memfd_secret() and aren't be affected. From going through the iterations of the original memfd_secret patch series, it seems that disabling the syscall in these scenarios was the intended behavior [1] (preferred over having set_direct_map_invalid_noflush return an error as that would result in SIGBUSes at page-fault time), however the check for it got dropped between v16 [2] and v17 [3], when secretmem moved away from CMA allocations. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/#t [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
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>= 5.14, < 5.15.169>= 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 · scoped5.15.1696.1.1136.6.57
Upgrade to kernel version 5.15.169, 6.1.113, 6.6.57, or 6.11.4 (depending on current branch)
- Identify the currently running kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Determine which kernel branch (5.15.x, 6.1.x, 6.6.x, or 6.7+/6.11.x) the system is running
- For systems on 5.14.x to 5.15.x: upgrade to kernel version 5.15.169 or later
- For systems on 5.16.x to 6.1.x: upgrade to kernel version 6.1.113 or later
- For systems on 6.2.x to 6.6.x: upgrade to kernel version 6.6.57 or later
- For systems on 6.7.x to 6.11.x: upgrade to kernel version 6.11.4 or later
- After kernel upgrade, verify the fix is present by checking that memfd_secret() returns -ENOSYS on systems where can_set_direct_map() returns false
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-2024-50182 — 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-2024-50182 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