CVE-2024-50010

MEDIUM
Published Oct 21, 2024 Modified May 12, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exec: don't WARN for racy path_noexec check Both i_mode and noexec checks wrapped in WARN_ON stem from an artifact of the previous implementation. They used to legitimately check for the condition, but that got moved up in two commits: 633fb6ac3980 ("exec: move S_ISREG() check earlier") 0fd338b2d2cd ("exec: move path_noexec() check earlier") Instead of being removed said checks are WARN_ON'ed instead, which has some debug value. However, the spurious path_noexec check is racy, resulting in unwarranted warnings should someone race with setting the noexec flag. One can note there is more to perm-checking whether execve is allowed and none of the conditions are guaranteed to still hold after they were tested for. Additionally this does not validate whether the code path did any perm checking to begin with -- it will pass if the inode happens to be regular. Keep the redundant path_noexec() check even though it's mindless nonsense checking for guarantee that isn't given so drop the WARN. Reword the commentary and do small tidy ups while here. [brauner: keep redundant path_noexec() check]

Is your site exposed to CVE-2024-50010?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

CVSS v3.1 Score

4.7
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Affected Products

Vendor Product
linux linux_kernel

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2024-50010? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exec: don't WARN for racy path_noexec check Both i_mode and noexec checks wrapped in WARN_ON stem from an artifact of the previous implementation. They used to legitimately check for the condition, but that got moved up in two commits: 633fb6ac3980 ("exec: move S_ISREG() check earlier") 0fd338b2d2cd ("exec: move path_noexec() check earlier") Instead of being removed said checks are WARN_ON'ed instead, which has some debug value. However, the spurious path_noexec check is racy, resulting in unwarranted warnings should someone race with setting the noexec flag. One can note there is more to perm-checking whether execve is allowed and none of the conditions are guaranteed to still hold after they were tested for. Additionally this does not validate whether the code path did any perm checking to begin with -- it will pass if the inode happens to be regular. Keep the redundant path_noexec() check even though it's mindless nonsense checking for guarantee that isn't given so drop the WARN. Reword the commentary and do small tidy ups while here. [brauner: keep redundant path_noexec() check] It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.7 (MEDIUM).
How severe is CVE-2024-50010? +
CVE-2024-50010 has a CVSS v3.1 score of 4.7 out of 10, rated MEDIUM. This is a medium-severity vulnerability that should be remediated as part of regular maintenance.
What products are affected by CVE-2024-50010? +
CVE-2024-50010 affects products from linux, specifically: linux_kernel. Check the affected products table above for specific version ranges.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2024-50010? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Related Vulnerabilities

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2024-50010 — free, no signup required.