CVE-2024-35853
Linux Kernel 5.1 – 5.4.275
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-35853 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 6.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked in the top 48% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-35571
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mlxsw: spectrum_acl_tcam: Fix memory leak during rehash The rehash delayed work migrates filters from one region to another. This is done by iterating over all chunks (all the filters with…
more
the same priority) in the region and in each chunk iterating over all the filters. If the migration fails, the code tries to migrate the filters back to the old region. However, the rollback itself can also fail in which case another migration will be erroneously performed. Besides the fact that this ping pong is not a very good idea, it also creates a problem. Each virtual chunk references two chunks: The currently used one ('vchunk->chunk') and a backup ('vchunk->chunk2'). During migration the first holds the chunk we want to migrate filters to and the second holds the chunk we are migrating filters from. The code currently assumes - but does not verify - that the backup chunk does not exist (NULL) if the currently used chunk does not reference the target region. This assumption breaks when we are trying to rollback a rollback, resulting in the backup chunk being overwritten and leaked [1]. Fix by not rolling back a failed rollback and add a warning to avoid future cases. [1] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1063 at lib/parman.c:291 parman_destroy+0x17/0x20 Modules linked in: CPU: 5 PID: 1063 Comm: kworker/5:11 Tainted: G W 6.9.0-rc2-custom-00784-gc6a05c468a0b #14 Hardware name: Mellanox Technologies Ltd. MSN3700/VMOD0005, BIOS 5.11 01/06/2019 Workqueue: mlxsw_core mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_vregion_rehash_work RIP: 0010:parman_destroy+0x17/0x20 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> mlxsw_sp_acl_atcam_region_fini+0x19/0x60 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_region_destroy+0x49/0xf0 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_vregion_rehash_work+0x1f1/0x470 process_one_work+0x151/0x370 worker_thread+0x2cb/0x3e0 kthread+0xd0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK>
- 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 (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.