CVE-2024-50001
Linux Kernel 5.10 – 5.10.227
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-50001 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 25th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) and SI-17 (Fail-safe Procedures) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-45219
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Fix error path in multi-packet WQE transmit Remove the erroneous unmap in case no DMA mapping was established The multi-packet WQE transmit code attempts to obtain a DMA mapping…
more
for the skb. This could fail, e.g. under memory pressure, when the IOMMU driver just can't allocate more memory for page tables. While the code tries to handle this in the path below the err_unmap label it erroneously unmaps one entry from the sq's FIFO list of active mappings. Since the current map attempt failed this unmap is removing some random DMA mapping that might still be required. If the PCI function now presents that IOVA, the IOMMU may assumes a rogue DMA access and e.g. on s390 puts the PCI function in error state. The erroneous behavior was seen in a stress-test environment that created memory pressure.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires the system to fail to a known safe state on specified failures, limiting the impact of unhandled exceptional conditions.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled or mishandled exceptional conditions.
Requires generation of appropriate error messages on exceptional conditions, directly enforcing correct handling rather than silent or incorrect behavior.
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 explicitly require proper exception and error handling during design and coding.
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 and acceptance verifies correct handling of exceptional conditions.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.