Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/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-2024-35980 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 13th 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-2024-35698
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
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
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.
Security testing in development catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.