CVE-2024-58100
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: check changes_pkt_data property for extension programs When processing calls to global sub-programs, verifier decides whether to invalidate all packet pointers in current state depending on the changes_pkt_data property of the global sub-program. Because of this, an extension program replacing a global sub-program must be compatible with changes_pkt_data property of the sub-program being replaced. This commit: - adds changes_pkt_data flag to struct bpf_prog_aux: - this flag is set in check_cfg() for main sub-program; - in jit_subprogs() for other sub-programs; - modifies bpf_check_attach_btf_id() to check changes_pkt_data flag; - moves call to check_attach_btf_id() after the call to check_cfg(), because it needs changes_pkt_data flag to be set: bpf_check: ... ... - check_attach_btf_id resolve_pseudo_ldimm64 resolve_pseudo_ldimm64 --> bpf_prog_is_offloaded bpf_prog_is_offloaded check_cfg check_cfg + check_attach_btf_id ... ... The following fields are set by check_attach_btf_id(): - env->ops - prog->aux->attach_btf_trace - prog->aux->attach_func_name - prog->aux->attach_func_proto - prog->aux->dst_trampoline - prog->aux->mod - prog->aux->saved_dst_attach_type - prog->aux->saved_dst_prog_type - prog->expected_attach_type Neither of these fields are used by resolve_pseudo_ldimm64() or bpf_prog_offload_verifier_prep() (for netronome and netdevsim drivers), so the reordering is safe.
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>= 5.6, < 6.6.90>= 6.7, < 6.12.25= 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
- 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 · scoped6.6.906.12.25
6.6.90, 6.12.25, or later (preferably latest stable 6.14.x)
- 1. Identify all systems running affected kernel versions: >= 5.6 and < 6.6.90, >= 6.7 and < 6.12.25, or 6.13.x
- 2. Schedule a maintenance window for each affected system
- 3. Upgrade the Linux kernel to a fixed version: 6.6.90 or later for 6.6.y systems, 6.12.25 or later for 6.7-6.12.y systems, or 6.14+ for 6.13.x systems
- 4. For production systems, test the kernel upgrade in a staging environment first to verify compatibility with existing modules and drivers
- 5. After upgrading, reboot the systems to load the new kernel
- 6. Verify the running kernel version post-reboot using 'uname -r' to confirm the fix is applied
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-2024-58100 — 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-2024-58100 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