Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-35980

Memory Safety in Linux Kernel 6.6 – 6.6.29

Published
20 May 2024
Modified
16 January 2025
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 0.0022 13th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-35980 is a medium-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 13th 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: arm64: tlb: Fix TLBI RANGE operand KVM/arm64 relies on TLBI RANGE feature to flush TLBs when the dirty pages are collected by VMM and the page table entries become write…

more

protected during live migration. Unfortunately, the operand passed to the TLBI RANGE instruction isn't correctly sorted out due to the commit 117940aa6e5f ("KVM: arm64: Define kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range()"). It leads to crash on the destination VM after live migration because TLBs aren't flushed completely and some of the dirty pages are missed. For example, I have a VM where 8GB memory is assigned, starting from 0x40000000 (1GB). Note that the host has 4KB as the base page size. In the middile of migration, kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() is executed to flush TLBs. It passes MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES as the argument to __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() and __flush_s2_tlb_range_op(). SCALE#3 and NUM#31, corresponding to MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES, isn't supported by __TLBI_RANGE_NUM(). In this specific case, -1 has been returned from __TLBI_RANGE_NUM() for SCALE#3/2/1/0 and rejected by the loop in the __flush_tlb_range_op() until the variable @scale underflows and becomes -9, 0xffff708000040000 is set as the operand. The operand is wrong since it's sorted out by __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() according to invalid @scale and @num. Fix it by extending __TLBI_RANGE_NUM() to support the combination of SCALE#3 and NUM#31. With the changes, [-1 31] instead of [-1 30] can be returned from the macro, meaning the TLBs for 0x200000 pages in the above example can be flushed in one shoot with SCALE#3 and NUM#31. The macro TLBI_RANGE_MASK is dropped since no one uses it any more. The comments are also adjusted accordingly.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-26828Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-43301Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-23069Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-43187Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-46107Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-53081Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-53679Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-53258Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-31417Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-43171Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
6.9 · 6.6 — 6.6.29 · 6.7 — 6.8.7

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 full match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.

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.

detects

Security testing in development catches integer underflow defects before release.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.

prevents

Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.

prevents

Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.

References