Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-26696

Linux Kernel 3.9 – 4.19.307

Published
03 April 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0019 9th percentile
Risk Priority 41 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-26696 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: fix hang in nilfs_lookup_dirty_data_buffers() Syzbot reported a hang issue in migrate_pages_batch() called by mbind() and nilfs_lookup_dirty_data_buffers() called in the log writer of nilfs2. While migrate_pages_batch() locks a folio and…

more

waits for the writeback to complete, the log writer thread that should bring the writeback to completion picks up the folio being written back in nilfs_lookup_dirty_data_buffers() that it calls for subsequent log creation and was trying to lock the folio. Thus causing a deadlock. In the first place, it is unexpected that folios/pages in the middle of writeback will be updated and become dirty. Nilfs2 adds a checksum to verify the validity of the log being written and uses it for recovery at mount, so data changes during writeback are suppressed. Since this is broken, an unclean shutdown could potentially cause recovery to fail. Investigation revealed that the root cause is that the wait for writeback completion in nilfs_page_mkwrite() is conditional, and if the backing device does not require stable writes, data may be modified without waiting. Fix these issues by making nilfs_page_mkwrite() wait for writeback to finish regardless of the stable write requirement of the backing device.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1548 Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may circumvent mechanisms designed to control privilege elevation to gain higher-level permissions.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-39782Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-38520Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-39773Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-37968Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-26643Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-39885Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-26679Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-37969Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-35805Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-38711Same product: Debian Debian Linux

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
6.8 · 3.9 — 4.19.307 · 4.20 — 5.4.269 · 5.5 — 5.10.210
debian
debian linux
10.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly include code reviews, static analysis, and concurrency standards that prevent improper locking.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing can detect race conditions and locking errors before release.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes concurrency and locking requirements that reduce improper locking defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate proper lock acquisition/release patterns.

prevents

Secure architecture principles address thread-safety and resource synchronization.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly prohibit missing or incorrect lock usage.

prevents

Change management may catch locking issues introduced by modifications but does not prevent the weakness itself.

References