CVE-2024-53047
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: mptcp: init: protect sched with rcu_read_lock Enabling CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST with its dependence CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT creates this splat when an MPTCP socket is created: ============================= WARNING: suspicious RCU usage 6.12.0-rc2+ #11 Not tainted ----------------------------- net/mptcp/sched.c:44 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! other info that might help us debug this: rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 no locks held by mptcp_connect/176. stack backtrace: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 176 Comm: mptcp_connect Not tainted 6.12.0-rc2+ #11 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:123) lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:6822) mptcp_sched_find (net/mptcp/sched.c:44 (discriminator 7)) mptcp_init_sock (net/mptcp/protocol.c:2867 (discriminator 1)) ? sock_init_data_uid (arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:28) inet_create.part.0.constprop.0 (net/ipv4/af_inet.c:386) ? __sock_create (include/linux/rcupdate.h:347 (discriminator 1)) __sock_create (net/socket.c:1576) __sys_socket (net/socket.c:1671) ? __pfx___sys_socket (net/socket.c:1712) ? do_user_addr_fault (arch/x86/mm/fault.c:1419 (discriminator 1)) __x64_sys_socket (net/socket.c:1728) do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 (discriminator 1)) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130) That's because when the socket is initialised, rcu_read_lock() is not used despite the explicit comment written above the declaration of mptcp_sched_find() in sched.c. Adding the missing lock/unlock avoids the warning.
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 analysisShared resources are accessed without correct locking, so concurrent operations interleave into inconsistent — and sometimes exploitable — states, or deadlock the service outright. These bugs are subtle and timing-dependent. The fix is correct, consistent locking or atomic operations around every shared resource.
General guidance for the improper locking 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, < 6.6.60>= 6.7, < 6.11.7= 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 · scoped6.6.606.11.7
Linux kernel 6.6.60+, 6.11.7+, or 6.13+ (depending on which stable branch you are on)
- Apply the kernel patch from commit 3deb12c788c385e17142ce6ec50f769852fcec65 to add rcu_read_lock() around mptcp_sched_find() call in net/mptcp/protocol.c
- Alternatively, rebuild the kernel with the fix applied
- If unable to patch immediately, the issue is a warning (not a crash) when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST is enabled; it does not cause immediate security compromise but should be addressed
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-2024-53047 — 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-2024-53047 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