Skip to main content

Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2024-27005'

View all threats tagged with 'ubuntu-cve-2024-27005'. Filter and sort to focus on specific types of threats.

Pro Console Lifetime

Stop chasing alerts. Route them.

Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.

Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)

View Plans & Pricing

API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.

Breach by OffSeqOFFSEQFRIENDS — 25% OFF

Check if your credentials are on the dark web

Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.

Scan now

Filter Threats

Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries

Search threats by title, CVE ID, or description. Maximum 100 characters.
Active filters (1):Tag: ubuntu-cve-2024-27005

Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2024-27005'

Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated The icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock mutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn't adequately protect access to icc_node::req_list. The icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while only holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only holding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(), and icc_put(). Example A: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); icc_put(path_b) mutex_lock(&icc_lock); aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_del(... <r = invalid pointer> Example B: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); path_b = of_icc_get() of_icc_get_by_index() mutex_lock(&icc_lock); path_find() path_init() aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_add_head(... <r = invalid pointer> Fix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating icc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don't perform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the original lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks. [1] commit af42269c3523 ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim")

Join the discussion

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 result

Filters:Tag: ubuntu-cve-2024-27005
Page 1 of 1
OffSeq TrainingCredly Certified

Lead Pen Test Professional

Technical5-day eLearningPECB Accredited
View courses