Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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-2024-39296 is a medium-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 4.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 6th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38199
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bonding: fix oops during rmmod "rmmod bonding" causes an oops ever since commit cc317ea3d927 ("bonding: remove redundant NULL check in debugfs function"). Here are the relevant functions being called: bonding_exit()…
more
bond_destroy_debugfs() debugfs_remove_recursive(bonding_debug_root); bonding_debug_root = NULL; <--------- SET TO NULL HERE bond_netlink_fini() rtnl_link_unregister() __rtnl_link_unregister() unregister_netdevice_many_notify() bond_uninit() bond_debug_unregister() (commit removed check for bonding_debug_root == NULL) debugfs_remove() simple_recursive_removal() down_write() -> OOPS However, reverting the bad commit does not solve the problem completely because the original code contains a race that could cause the same oops, although it was much less likely to be triggered unintentionally: CPU1 rmmod bonding bonding_exit() bond_destroy_debugfs() debugfs_remove_recursive(bonding_debug_root); CPU2 echo -bond0 > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters bond_uninit() bond_debug_unregister() if (!bonding_debug_root) CPU1 bonding_debug_root = NULL; So do NOT revert the bad commit (since the removed checks were racy anyway), and instead change the order of actions taken during module removal. The same oops can also happen if there is an error during module init, so apply the same fix there.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.2V10.4.5V15.1.3V15.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including static analysis) directly finds null-dereference bugs before deployment.
Documented development standards and tools can enforce null-safety rules and safe pointer usage.
Engineering principles can mandate defensive coding such as explicit null checks before dereference.
Maintaining separate execution domains for each process structurally eliminates unintended concurrent access to the same shared resources.
Preventing unintended information transfer through shared system resources directly addresses the improper concurrent modification that defines a race condition.
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 require proper synchronization primitives and concurrency testing that prevent race conditions.
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 can detect race conditions, but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.