What’s Vulnerable › Vulnerabilities
CVE-2024-40998: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()
- Severity: medium (CVSS 5.5 v3.1)
- Exploited in the wild: not listed in CISA KEV
- EPSS: 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days
- Public exploit or detection template: none known
- Published: 2024-07-12 · updated 2026-10-30
- Weakness: CWE-908
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all initializations are complete to avoid such problems.
Affected products
- Linux kernel: before 6.6.36; from 6.7 before 6.9.7 — fixed in 6.6.36, 6.9.7
- Linux: 3.13 — fixed in 6.10
How to fix
Upgrade to a fixed version: Linux kernel 6.6.36, 6.9.7; Linux 6.10. Check the vendor advisory for mitigations.
References
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1e2df0ee0afd6d4b436a740f04f7a759e6531005
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/23afcd52af06880c6c913a0ad99022b8937b575c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/645267906944a9aeec9d5c56ee24a9096a288798
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b4b4fda34e535756f9e774fb2d09c4537b7dfd1c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/23afcd52af06880c6c913a0ad99022b8937b575c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/645267906944a9aeec9d5c56ee24a9096a288798
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b4b4fda34e535756f9e774fb2d09c4537b7dfd1c
Get alerted when CVE-2024-40998 or the next vulnerability affects your stack