CVE-2024-26937
Linux Kernel 5.4 – 5.4.274
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-26937 is a medium-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 19th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-24199
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/gt: Reset queue_priority_hint on parking Originally, with strict in order execution, we could complete execution only when the queue was empty. Preempt-to-busy allows replacement of an active request that may…
more
complete before the preemption is processed by HW. If that happens, the request is retired from the queue, but the queue_priority_hint remains set, preventing direct submission until after the next CS interrupt is processed. This preempt-to-busy race can be triggered by the heartbeat, which will also act as the power-management barrier and upon completion allow us to idle the HW. We may process the completion of the heartbeat, and begin parking the engine before the CS event that restores the queue_priority_hint, causing us to fail the assertion that it is MIN. <3>[ 166.210729] __engine_park:283 GEM_BUG_ON(engine->sched_engine->queue_priority_hint != (-((int)(~0U >> 1)) - 1)) <0>[ 166.210781] Dumping ftrace buffer: <0>[ 166.210795] --------------------------------- ... <0>[ 167.302811] drm_fdin-1097 2..s1. 165741070us : trace_ports: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: promote { ccid:20 1217:2 prio 0 } <0>[ 167.302861] drm_fdin-1097 2d.s2. 165741072us : execlists_submission_tasklet: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: preempting last=1217:2, prio=0, hint=2147483646 <0>[ 167.302928] drm_fdin-1097 2d.s2. 165741072us : __i915_request_unsubmit: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: fence 1217:2, current 0 <0>[ 167.302992] drm_fdin-1097 2d.s2. 165741073us : __i915_request_submit: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: fence 3:4660, current 4659 <0>[ 167.303044] drm_fdin-1097 2d.s1. 165741076us : execlists_submission_tasklet: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:3 schedule-in, ccid:40 <0>[ 167.303095] drm_fdin-1097 2d.s1. 165741077us : trace_ports: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: submit { ccid:40 3:4660* prio 2147483646 } <0>[ 167.303159] kworker/-89 11..... 165741139us : i915_request_retire.part.0: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: fence c90:2, current 2 <0>[ 167.303208] kworker/-89 11..... 165741148us : __intel_context_do_unpin: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:c90 unpin <0>[ 167.303272] kworker/-89 11..... 165741159us : i915_request_retire.part.0: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: fence 1217:2, current 2 <0>[ 167.303321] kworker/-89 11..... 165741166us : __intel_context_do_unpin: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:1217 unpin <0>[ 167.303384] kworker/-89 11..... 165741170us : i915_request_retire.part.0: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: fence 3:4660, current 4660 <0>[ 167.303434] kworker/-89 11d..1. 165741172us : __intel_context_retire: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:1216 retire runtime: { total:56028ns, avg:56028ns } <0>[ 167.303484] kworker/-89 11..... 165741198us : __engine_park: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: parked <0>[ 167.303534] <idle>-0 5d.H3. 165741207us : execlists_irq_handler: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: semaphore yield: 00000040 <0>[ 167.303583] kworker/-89 11..... 165741397us : __intel_context_retire: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:1217 retire runtime: { total:325575ns, avg:0ns } <0>[ 167.303756] kworker/-89 11..... 165741777us : __intel_context_retire: 0000:00:02.0 rcs0: context:c90 retire runtime: { total:0ns, avg:0ns } <0>[ 167.303806] kworker/-89 11..... 165742017us : __engine_park: __engine_park:283 GEM_BUG_ON(engine->sched_engine->queue_priority_hint != (-((int)(~0U >> 1)) - 1)) <0>[ 167.303811] --------------------------------- <4>[ 167.304722] ------------[ cut here ]------------ <2>[ 167.304725] kernel BUG at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c:283! <4>[ 167.304731] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI <4>[ 167.304734] CPU: 11 PID: 89 Comm: kworker/11:1 Tainted: G W 6.8.0-rc2-CI_DRM_14193-gc655e0fd2804+ #1 <4>[ 167.304736] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Rocket Lake Client Platform/RocketLake S UDIMM 6L RVP, BIOS RKLSFWI1.R00.3173.A03.2204210138 04/21/2022 <4>[ 167.304738] Workqueue: i915-unordered retire_work_handler [i915] <4>[ 16 ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
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.
Security testing in development can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.
Secure architecture principles discourage the use of assertions for runtime error handling that an attacker could exploit.
Secure coding standards explicitly ban the use of assert() or equivalent statements that can be triggered by external input.