CVE-2024-50002
Linux Kernel 5.10 – 5.15.168
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-50002 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 15th 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-2024-45220
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: static_call: Handle module init failure correctly in static_call_del_module() Module insertion invokes static_call_add_module() to initialize the static calls in a module. static_call_add_module() invokes __static_call_init(), which allocates a struct static_call_mod to either…
more
encapsulate the built-in static call sites of the associated key into it so further modules can be added or to append the module to the module chain. If that allocation fails the function returns with an error code and the module core invokes static_call_del_module() to clean up eventually added static_call_mod entries. This works correctly, when all keys used by the module were converted over to a module chain before the failure. If not then static_call_del_module() causes a #GP as it blindly assumes that key::mods points to a valid struct static_call_mod. The problem is that key::mods is not a individual struct member of struct static_call_key, it's part of a union to save space: union { /* bit 0: 0 = mods, 1 = sites */ unsigned long type; struct static_call_mod *mods; struct static_call_site *sites; }; key::sites is a pointer to the list of built-in usage sites of the static call. The type of the pointer is differentiated by bit 0. A mods pointer has the bit clear, the sites pointer has the bit set. As static_call_del_module() blidly assumes that the pointer is a valid static_call_mod type, it fails to check for this failure case and dereferences the pointer to the list of built-in call sites, which is obviously bogus. Cure it by checking whether the key has a sites or a mods pointer. If it's a sites pointer then the key is not to be touched. As the sites are walked in the same order as in __static_call_init() the site walk can be terminated because all subsequent sites have not been touched by the init code due to the error exit. If it was converted before the allocation fail, then the inner loop which searches for a module match will find nothing. A fail in the second allocation in __static_call_init() is harmless and does not require special treatment. The first allocation succeeded and converted the key to a module chain. That first entry has mod::mod == NULL and mod::next == NULL, so the inner loop of static_call_del_module() will neither find a module match nor a module chain. The next site in the walk was either already converted, but can't match the module, or it will exit the outer loop because it has a static_call_site pointer and not a static_call_mod pointer.
- 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.