CVE-2024-57892
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: ocfs2: fix slab-use-after-free due to dangling pointer dqi_priv When mounting ocfs2 and then remounting it as read-only, a slab-use-after-free occurs after the user uses a syscall to quota_getnextquota. Specifically, sb_dqinfo(sb, type)->dqi_priv is the dangling pointer. During the remounting process, the pointer dqi_priv is freed but is never set as null leaving it to be accessed. Additionally, the read-only option for remounting sets the DQUOT_SUSPENDED flag instead of setting the DQUOT_USAGE_ENABLED flags. Moreover, later in the process of getting the next quota, the function ocfs2_get_next_id is called and only checks the quota usage flags and not the quota suspended flags. To fix this, I set dqi_priv to null when it is freed after remounting with read-only and put a check for DQUOT_SUSPENDED in ocfs2_get_next_id. [[email protected]: coding-style cleanups]
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 analysisMemory is used after it has been freed, so its contents — now potentially attacker-controlled — drive the program's behaviour. With careful heap grooming this becomes code execution. The fix requires disciplined ownership of memory and often a targeted rework of the object lifecycle.
General guidance for the use after free 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>= 4.6, < 6.1.125>= 6.2, < 6.6.70>= 6.7, < 6.12.9= 6.13CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped6.1.1256.6.706.12.9
Upgrade to kernel >= 6.1.125 OR >= 6.6.70 OR >= 6.12.9 OR >= 6.14 (whichever is the minimum stable release available for your distribution)
- Identify current kernel version using `uname -r`
- Check if current version is affected (vulnerable versions: < 6.1.125, 6.2-6.6.69, 6.7-6.12.8, 6.13)
- Plan kernel upgrade to a fixed release that includes the upstream fix commit 2d431192486367eee03cc28d0b53b97dafcb8e63
- For RHEL/CentOS systems: update kernel via `yum update kernel` or `dnf update kernel`
- For Debian/Ubuntu systems: update kernel via `apt-get update && apt-get install linux-image-generic`
- For SUSE systems: update kernel via `zypper patch` or `zypper update kernel-*`
- Reboot into the new kernel after confirming the update was applied
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the dqi_priv nullification exists in the source code
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-2024-57892 — 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-2024-57892 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