← Back to CVE intelligence
CVE intelligence

CVE-2024-27005

Vulnerability intelligence

Published May 1, 2024Sources checked Sep 30, 2026
7.8HIGHCVSS out of 10
What this means

Review the available evidence

CVE-2024-27005 and is rated High severity with a CVSS score of 7.8. It is not in the current CISA KEV record we collected. That does not prove exploitation has not occurred.

What to do next

Remediation and response

CISA KEVNot listedBased on the latest collected catalog
EPSS0.2%Estimated 30-day exploitation probability
Ransomware useNot markedCISA KEV ransomware field
Threat actors0Source-linked actor relationships
Overview

What is CVE-2024-27005?

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated The icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock mutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn't adequately protect access to icc_node::req_list. The icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while only holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only holding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(), and icc_put(). Example A: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); icc_put(path_b) mutex_lock(&icc_lock); aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_del(... <r = invalid pointer> Example B: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); path_b = of_icc_get() of_icc_get_by_index() mutex_lock(&icc_lock); path_find() path_init() aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_add_head(... <r = invalid pointer> Fix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating icc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don't perform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the original lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks. [1] commit af42269c3523 ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim")