Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-42071

DoS in Linux Kernel ≤ 6.9

Published
29 July 2024
Modified
04 August 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0022 13th percentile
Risk Priority 55 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-42071 is a high-severity Excessive Iteration (CWE-834) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it…

more

with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [ 4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [ 4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-42237Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-44971Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-38563Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-56572Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-50254Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-44969Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-50168Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-52563Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-52643Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-50013Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
≤ 6.9 · 6.9.1 — 6.9.8

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Engineering principles can require developers to bound all loops and iterations at design time.

Resource quotas limit the CPU/time impact of an excessively long loop without eliminating the flaw.

Input validation can reject or sanitize data that would otherwise drive unbounded iteration.

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 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unbounded loops via code review, static analysis, and testing.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect excessive iteration through stress and fuzz testing.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle requires input validation and loop bounds, directly limiting excessive iteration.

prevents

Application security requirements include resource-consumption limits that prevent unbounded loops.

prevents

Secure architecture principles mandate defensive coding patterns such as loop termination checks.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unbounded loops and require explicit iteration limits.

References