vulnerability
Debian: CVE-2024-27005: linux -- security update
| Severity | CVSS | Published | Added | Modified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | (AV:L/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/I:N/A:C) | May 1, 2024 | May 15, 2025 | Mar 30, 2026 |
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")
Solution
2026 Global Threat Landscape Report
The predictive window has collapsed. Exploitation follows disclosure in days. See how attackers are accelerating and how to stay ahead.