[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"repo-stars":3,"vuln-DEBIAN-CVE-2024-27005":6},{"stargazers_count":4,"fetched_at":5},7,"2026-06-04T14:53:31.930Z",{"id":7,"descriptions":8,"cisa":9,"weaknesses":10,"exploits":11,"aliases":12,"duplicate_of":9,"upstream":13,"downstream":16,"duplicates":17,"related":18,"reserved_at":9,"published_at":19,"modified_at":20,"state":9,"summary":21,"references_raw":23,"kevs":30,"epss":9,"epss_history":31,"metrics":32,"affected":39},"DEBIAN-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(...         \u003Cr = 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(...         \u003Cr = 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\")",null,[],[],[],[14],{"_key":15},"CVE-2024-27005",[],[],[],"2024-05-01T06:15:18.883Z","2026-04-28T20:27:46.771832Z",{"cisa_kev":22,"cisa_ransomware":22,"cisa_vendor":9,"epss_severity":9,"epss_score":9,"severity":9,"severity_score":9,"severity_version":9,"severity_source":9,"severity_vector":9,"severity_status":9},false,[24],{"url":25,"sources":26,"tags":28},"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-27005",[27],"osv_debian",[29],"Advisory",[],[],[33],{"source":27,"cvss_v2_0":9,"cvss_v3_0":9,"cvss_v3_1":34,"cvss_v4_0":9},{"baseScore":35,"baseSeverity":9,"vectorString":36,"impactScore":37,"exploitabilityScore":38},6.3,"CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",8.7,2.6,[40],{"ecosystem":41,"name":42,"vendor":43,"product":42,"cpe_part":9,"purl_type":44,"purl_namespace":43,"purl_name":42,"source":9,"versions":45},"Debian","linux","debian","deb",[46,52],{"version":47,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":50,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9},"lt6_8_9_1",true,"ecosystem","6.8.9-1","excluding",{"version":47,"is_range":48,"range_type":49,"version_start":9,"version_start_type":9,"version_end":50,"version_end_type":51,"fixed_in":9}]