CVE-2024-27005

interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated

HIGH
7.8
CVSS Score
Published: May 1, 2024 at 05:28 AM UTC
Updated: August 5, 2026 at 12:04 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH7.8
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

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")

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v ≥ 6.5.55.15.133 ≤ v < 5.15.1515.15.133 ≤ v < 5.166.1.55 ≤ v < 6.1.816.1.55 ≤ v < 6.26.5.5 ≤ v < 6.66.5.5 ≤ v < 6.6.296.6 ≤ v < 6.6.296.6 ≤ v < 6.8.86.6 ≤ v < 6.96.7 ≤ v < 6.8.82f3a124696d43de3c837f87a9f767c56ee86cf2a5.15.1336.1.556.5.56.9 rc16.9 rc26.9 rc36.9 rc49be2957f014d91088db1eb5dd09d9a03d7184dceaf42269c3523492d71ebbe11fefae2653e9cdc78ee42bfc791aa3cd78e29046f26a09d189beb3efb
Vendor states this is fixed in 19ec82b3cad1abef2a929262b8c1528f4e0c192d (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in fe549d8e976300d0dd75bd904eb216bed8b145e0 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15.151 (unaffected)
Affected range stops below 5.16, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.81 (unaffected)
Affected range stops below 6.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.29 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.8.8 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.9 (unaffected)

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

7.8HIGHLinux
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-362CWE-667

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card