Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2024-40998: Linux kernel · ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium · fixed in 6.8.0-1015.16~22.04.1 : update Linux kernel when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 11:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
5.5Medium
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.
Patch
Available – fixed in 6.8.0-1015.16~22.04.1, 6.8.0-1014.16~22.04.1, 6.8.0-45.45~22.04.1 +16
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 12 Jul 2024

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponised: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

ProductAffectedFixed in
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinuxpkg:deb/ubuntu/linux?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-44.44
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-44.44
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-awspkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-aws?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1015.16
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1015.16
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azurepkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1014.16
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1014.16
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-gcppkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-gcp?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1014.16
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1014.16
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-gkepkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-gke?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1010.13
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1010.13
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-ibmpkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-ibm?arch=source&distro=nobleOther threatsAffected
  • <6.8.0-1012.12
Fixed in
  • 6.8.0-1012.12

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all initializations are complete to avoid such problems.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…