CVE-2024-38600
Linux Kernel ≤ 5.15.161
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2024-38600 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 8th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-37463
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: Fix deadlocks with kctl removals at disconnection In snd_card_disconnect(), we set card->shutdown flag at the beginning, call callbacks and do sync for card->power_ref_sleep waiters at the end. The callback…
more
may delete a kctl element, and this can lead to a deadlock when the device was in the suspended state. Namely: * A process waits for the power up at snd_power_ref_and_wait() in snd_ctl_info() or read/write() inside card->controls_rwsem. * The system gets disconnected meanwhile, and the driver tries to delete a kctl via snd_ctl_remove*(); it tries to take card->controls_rwsem again, but this is already locked by the above. Since the sleeper isn't woken up, this deadlocks. An easy fix is to wake up sleepers before processing the driver disconnect callbacks but right after setting the card->shutdown flag. Then all sleepers will abort immediately, and the code flows again. So, basically this patch moves the wait_event() call at the right timing. While we're at it, just to be sure, call wait_event_all() instead of wait_event(), although we don't use exclusive events on this queue for now.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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.
Secure development lifecycle includes concurrency and locking requirements that reduce improper locking defects.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as buffer overflows or SQL injection) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or prevent improper locking from being present or exploitable in the resulting application.
Secure architecture principles address thread-safety and resource synchronization.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit missing or incorrect lock usage.
Security testing can detect race conditions and locking errors before release.
Change management may catch locking issues introduced by modifications but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-667, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.