CVE-2024-53071
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: drm/panthor: Be stricter about IO mapping flags The current panthor_device_mmap_io() implementation has two issues: 1. For mapping DRM_PANTHOR_USER_FLUSH_ID_MMIO_OFFSET, panthor_device_mmap_io() bails if VM_WRITE is set, but does not clear VM_MAYWRITE. That means userspace can use mprotect() to make the mapping writable later on. This is a classic Linux driver gotcha. I don't think this actually has any impact in practice: When the GPU is powered, writes to the FLUSH_ID seem to be ignored; and when the GPU is not powered, the dummy_latest_flush page provided by the driver is deliberately designed to not do any flushes, so the only thing writing to the dummy_latest_flush could achieve would be to make *more* flushes happen. 2. panthor_device_mmap_io() does not block MAP_PRIVATE mappings (which are mappings without the VM_SHARED flag). MAP_PRIVATE in combination with VM_MAYWRITE indicates that the VMA has copy-on-write semantics, which for VM_PFNMAP are semi-supported but fairly cursed. In particular, in such a mapping, the driver can only install PTEs during mmap() by calling remap_pfn_range() (because remap_pfn_range() wants to **store the physical address of the mapped physical memory into the vm_pgoff of the VMA**); installing PTEs later on with a fault handler (as panthor does) is not supported in private mappings, and so if you try to fault in such a mapping, vmf_insert_pfn_prot() splats when it hits a BUG() check. Fix it by clearing the VM_MAYWRITE flag (userspace writing to the FLUSH_ID doesn't make sense) and requiring VM_SHARED (copy-on-write semantics for the FLUSH_ID don't make sense). Reproducers for both scenarios are in the notes of my patch on the mailing list; I tested that these bugs exist on a Rock 5B machine. Note that I only compile-tested the patch, I haven't tested it; I don't have a working kernel build setup for the test machine yet. Please test it before applying it.
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>= 6.10, < 6.11.8= 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 · scoped6.11.8
Linux Kernel 6.11.8+ or 6.12.1+ (choose the appropriate stable branch for your distribution)
- Identify the current kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine if the system is running an affected version: >= 6.10 and < 6.11.8, or exactly 6.12
- If affected, upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.11.8 or later in the 6.11.y stable tree, or version 6.12.1 or later in the 6.12.y stable tree
- Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- Verify the kernel version after reboot using `uname -r`
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-2024-53071 — 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-2024-53071 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