CVE-2024-49870
Linux Kernel 5.17 – 6.1.113
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-2024-49870 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 14th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-43716
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cachefiles: fix dentry leak in cachefiles_open_file() A dentry leak may be caused when a lookup cookie and a cull are concurrent: P1 | P2 ----------------------------------------------------------- cachefiles_lookup_cookie cachefiles_look_up_object lookup_one_positive_unlocked // get…
more
dentry cachefiles_cull inode->i_flags |= S_KERNEL_FILE; cachefiles_open_file cachefiles_mark_inode_in_use __cachefiles_mark_inode_in_use can_use = false if (!(inode->i_flags & S_KERNEL_FILE)) can_use = true return false return false // Returns an error but doesn't put dentry After that the following WARNING will be triggered when the backend folder is umounted: ================================================================== BUG: Dentry 000000008ad87947{i=7a,n=Dx_1_1.img} still in use (1) [unmount of ext4 sda] WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 359261 at fs/dcache.c:1767 umount_check+0x5d/0x70 CPU: 4 PID: 359261 Comm: umount Not tainted 6.6.0-dirty #25 RIP: 0010:umount_check+0x5d/0x70 Call Trace: <TASK> d_walk+0xda/0x2b0 do_one_tree+0x20/0x40 shrink_dcache_for_umount+0x2c/0x90 generic_shutdown_super+0x20/0x160 kill_block_super+0x1a/0x40 ext4_kill_sb+0x22/0x40 deactivate_locked_super+0x35/0x80 cleanup_mnt+0x104/0x160 ================================================================== Whether cachefiles_open_file() returns true or false, the reference count obtained by lookup_positive_unlocked() in cachefiles_look_up_object() should be released. Therefore release that reference count in cachefiles_look_up_object() to fix the above issue and simplify the code.
- 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 evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.