CVE-2024-45003
Linux Kernel 4.13 – 5.4.283
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-2024-45003 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 4.7 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-41574
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: Don't evict inode under the inode lru traversing context The inode reclaiming process(See function prune_icache_sb) collects all reclaimable inodes and mark them with I_FREEING flag at first, at that…
more
time, other processes will be stuck if they try getting these inodes (See function find_inode_fast), then the reclaiming process destroy the inodes by function dispose_list(). Some filesystems(eg. ext4 with ea_inode feature, ubifs with xattr) may do inode lookup in the inode evicting callback function, if the inode lookup is operated under the inode lru traversing context, deadlock problems may happen. Case 1: In function ext4_evict_inode(), the ea inode lookup could happen if ea_inode feature is enabled, the lookup process will be stuck under the evicting context like this: 1. File A has inode i_reg and an ea inode i_ea 2. getfattr(A, xattr_buf) // i_ea is added into lru // lru->i_ea 3. Then, following three processes running like this: PA PB echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches shrink_slab prune_dcache_sb // i_reg is added into lru, lru->i_ea->i_reg prune_icache_sb list_lru_walk_one inode_lru_isolate i_ea->i_state |= I_FREEING // set inode state inode_lru_isolate __iget(i_reg) spin_unlock(&i_reg->i_lock) spin_unlock(lru_lock) rm file A i_reg->nlink = 0 iput(i_reg) // i_reg->nlink is 0, do evict ext4_evict_inode ext4_xattr_delete_inode ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all ext4_xattr_inode_iget ext4_iget(i_ea->i_ino) iget_locked find_inode_fast __wait_on_freeing_inode(i_ea) ----→ AA deadlock dispose_list // cannot be executed by prune_icache_sb wake_up_bit(&i_ea->i_state) Case 2: In deleted inode writing function ubifs_jnl_write_inode(), file deleting process holds BASEHD's wbuf->io_mutex while getting the xattr inode, which could race with inode reclaiming process(The reclaiming process could try locking BASEHD's wbuf->io_mutex in inode evicting function), then an ABBA deadlock problem would happen as following: 1. File A has inode ia and a xattr(with inode ixa), regular file B has inode ib and a xattr. 2. getfattr(A, xattr_buf) // ixa is added into lru // lru->ixa 3. Then, following three processes running like this: PA PB PC echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches shrink_slab prune_dcache_sb // ib and ia are added into lru, lru->ixa->ib->ia prune_icache_sb list_lru_walk_one inode_lru_isolate ixa->i_state |= I_FREEING // set inode state inode_lru_isolate __iget(ib) spin_unlock(&ib->i_lock) spin_unlock(lru_lock) rm file B ib->nlink = 0 rm file A iput(ia) ubifs_evict_inode(ia) ubifs_jnl_delete_inode(ia) ubifs_jnl_write_inode(ia) make_reservation(BASEHD) // Lock wbuf->io_mutex ubifs_iget(ixa->i_ino) iget_locked find_inode_fast __wait_on_freeing_inode(ixa) | iput(ib) // ib->nlink is 0, do evict | ubifs_evict_inode | ubifs_jnl_delete_inode(ib) ↓ ubifs_jnl_write_inode ABBA deadlock ←-----make_reservation(BASEHD) dispose_list // cannot be executed by prune_icache_sb wake_up_bit(&ixa->i_state) Fix the possible deadlock by using new inode state flag I_LRU_ISOLATING to pin the inode in memory while inode_lru_isolate( ---truncated---
- 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.