CVE-2024-39486

drm/drm_file: Fix pid refcounting race

HIGH
7
CVSS Score
Published: July 6, 2024 at 09:25 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
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/drm_file: Fix pid refcounting race <[email protected]>, Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> filp->pid is supposed to be a refcounted pointer; however, before this patch, drm_file_update_pid() only increments the refcount of a struct pid after storing a pointer to it in filp->pid and dropping the dev->filelist_mutex, making the following race possible: process A process B ========= ========= begin drm_file_update_pid mutex_lock(&dev->filelist_mutex) rcu_replace_pointer(filp->pid, <pid B>, 1) mutex_unlock(&dev->filelist_mutex) begin drm_file_update_pid mutex_lock(&dev->filelist_mutex) rcu_replace_pointer(filp->pid, <pid A>, 1) mutex_unlock(&dev->filelist_mutex) get_pid(<pid A>) synchronize_rcu() put_pid(<pid B>) *** pid B reaches refcount 0 and is freed here *** get_pid(<pid B>) *** UAF *** synchronize_rcu() put_pid(<pid A>) As far as I know, this race can only occur with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y because it requires RCU to detect a quiescent state in code that is not explicitly calling into the scheduler. This race leads to use-after-free of a "struct pid". It is probably somewhat hard to hit because process A has to pass through a synchronize_rcu() operation while process B is between mutex_unlock() and get_pid(). Fix it by ensuring that by the time a pointer to the current task's pid is stored in the file, an extra reference to the pid has been taken. This fix also removes the condition for synchronize_rcu(); I think that optimization is unnecessary complexity, since in that case we would usually have bailed out on the lockless check above.

Affected

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

6.6.9 ≤ v < 6.6.376.7 ≤ v < 6.106.7 ≤ v < 6.9.81c7a387ffef894b1ab3942f0482dac7a6e0a909c31ddd28008971cce0b5626379b910d0a5fb4dd6.10 rc16.10 rc26.10 rc36.10 rc46.10 rc56.6.9
Vendor states this is fixed in 0acce2a5c619ef1abdee783d7fea5eac78ce4844 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 16682588ead4a593cf1aebb33b36df4d1e9e4ffa (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 4f2a129b33a2054e62273edd5a051c34c08d96e9 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.10 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.37 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.7 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.9.8 (unaffected)

References (3)

Patch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0acce2a5c619ef1abdee783d7fea5eac78ce4844
Patch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/16682588ead4a593cf1aebb33b36df4d1e9e4ffa
Patch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4f2a129b33a2054e62273edd5a051c34c08d96e9

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
HIGH
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-416

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