CVE-2024-56592
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: bpf: Call free_htab_elem() after htab_unlock_bucket() For htab of maps, when the map is removed from the htab, it may hold the last reference of the map. bpf_map_fd_put_ptr() will invoke bpf_map_free_id() to free the id of the removed map element. However, bpf_map_fd_put_ptr() is invoked while holding a bucket lock (raw_spin_lock_t), and bpf_map_free_id() attempts to acquire map_idr_lock (spinlock_t), triggering the following lockdep warning: ============================= [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] 6.11.0-rc4+ #49 Not tainted ----------------------------- test_maps/4881 is trying to lock: ffffffff84884578 (map_idr_lock){+...}-{3:3}, at: bpf_map_free_id.part.0+0x21/0x70 other info that might help us debug this: context-{5:5} 2 locks held by test_maps/4881: #0: ffffffff846caf60 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0xf9/0x270 #1: ffff888149ced148 (&htab->lockdep_key#2){....}-{2:2}, at: htab_map_update_elem+0x178/0xa80 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 4881 Comm: test_maps Not tainted 6.11.0-rc4+ #49 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), ... Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x6e/0xb0 dump_stack+0x10/0x20 __lock_acquire+0x73e/0x36c0 lock_acquire+0x182/0x450 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x43/0x70 bpf_map_free_id.part.0+0x21/0x70 bpf_map_put+0xcf/0x110 bpf_map_fd_put_ptr+0x9a/0xb0 free_htab_elem+0x69/0xe0 htab_map_update_elem+0x50f/0xa80 bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0x131/0x270 htab_map_update_elem+0x50f/0xa80 bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0x131/0x270 bpf_map_update_value+0x266/0x380 __sys_bpf+0x21bb/0x36b0 __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x60 x64_sys_call+0x1b2a/0x20d0 do_syscall_64+0x5d/0x100 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e One way to fix the lockdep warning is using raw_spinlock_t for map_idr_lock as well. However, bpf_map_alloc_id() invokes idr_alloc_cyclic() after acquiring map_idr_lock, it will trigger a similar lockdep warning because the slab's lock (s->cpu_slab->lock) is still a spinlock. Instead of changing map_idr_lock's type, fix the issue by invoking htab_put_fd_value() after htab_unlock_bucket(). However, only deferring the invocation of htab_put_fd_value() is not enough, because the old map pointers in htab of maps can not be saved during batched deletion. Therefore, also defer the invocation of free_htab_elem(), so these to-be-freed elements could be linked together similar to lru map. There are four callers for ->map_fd_put_ptr: (1) alloc_htab_elem() (through htab_put_fd_value()) It invokes ->map_fd_put_ptr() under a raw_spinlock_t. The invocation of htab_put_fd_value() can not simply move after htab_unlock_bucket(), because the old element has already been stashed in htab->extra_elems. It may be reused immediately after htab_unlock_bucket() and the invocation of htab_put_fd_value() after htab_unlock_bucket() may release the newly-added element incorrectly. Therefore, saving the map pointer of the old element for htab of maps before unlocking the bucket and releasing the map_ptr after unlock. Beside the map pointer in the old element, should do the same thing for the special fields in the old element as well. (2) free_htab_elem() (through htab_put_fd_value()) Its caller includes __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_elem(), htab_map_delete_elem() and __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(). For htab_map_delete_elem(), simply invoke free_htab_elem() after htab_unlock_bucket(). For __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(), just like lru map, linking the to-be-freed element into node_to_free list and invoking free_htab_elem() for these element after unlock. It is safe to reuse batch_flink as the link for node_to_free, because these elements have been removed from the hash llist. Because htab of maps doesn't support lookup_and_delete operation, __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_elem() doesn't have the problem, so kept it as ---truncated---
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>= 4.13, < 6.6.66>= 6.7, < 6.12.5CVSS 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 · scoped6.6.666.12.5
6.6.66+ or 6.12.5+ (Linux kernel stable releases)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.6.66 or later for the 6.6.y stable branch
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 6.12.5 or later for the 6.12.y stable branch
- Reboot the system with the new kernel to apply the fix
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-2024-56592 — 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-2024-56592 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