CVE-2024-53079

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2024-11-19. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2024-50495 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-4f2j-5xcx-5g9w (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mm/thp: fix deferred split unqueue naming and locking

Recent changes are putting more pressure on THP deferred split queues: under load revealing long-standing races, causing list_del corruptions, "Bad page state"s and worse (I keep BUGs in both of those, so usually don't get to see how badly they end up without). The relevant recent changes being 6.8's mTHP, 6.10's mTHP swapout, and 6.12's mTHP swapin, improved swap allocation, and underused THP splitting.

Before fixing locking: rename misleading folio_undo_large_rmappable(), which does not undo large_rmappable, to folio_unqueue_deferred_split(), which is what it does. But that and its out-of-line __callee are mm internals of very limited usability: add comment and WARN_ON_ONCEs to check usage; and return a bool to say if a deferred split was unqueued, which can then be used in WARN_ON_ONCEs around safety checks (sparing callers the arcane conditionals in __folio_unqueue_deferred_split()).

Just omit the folio_unqueue_deferred_split() from free_unref_folios(), all of whose callers now call it beforehand (and if any forget then bad_page() will tell) - except for its caller put_pages_list(), which itself no longer has any callers (and will be deleted separately).

Swapout: mem_cgroup_swapout() has been resetting folio->memcg_data 0 without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from deferred split list; which is unfortunate, since the split_queue_lock depends on the memcg (when memcg is enabled); so swapout has been unqueueing such THPs later, when freeing the folio, using the pgdat's lock instead: potentially corrupting the memcg's list. __remove_mapping() has frozen refcount to 0 here, so no problem with calling folio_unqueue_deferred_split() before resetting memcg_data.

That goes back to 5.4 commit 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware"): which included a check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue, but no check on deferred queue before adding THP to swapcache. That worked fine with the usual sequence of events in reclaim (though there were a couple of rare ways in which a THP on deferred queue could have been swapped out), but 6.12 commit dafff3f4c850 ("mm: split underused THPs") avoids splitting underused THPs in reclaim, which makes swapcache THPs on deferred queue commonplace.

Keep the check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue? Yes: it is no longer essential, but preserves the existing behaviour, and is likely to be a worthwhile optimization (vmstat showed much more traffic on the queue under swapping load if the check was removed); update its comment.

Memcg-v1 move (deprecated): mem_cgroup_move_account() has been changing folio->memcg_data without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from the deferred list, sometimes corrupting "from" memcg's list, like swapout. Refcount is non-zero here, so folio_unqueue_deferred_split() can only be used in a WARN_ON_ONCE to validate the fix, which must be done earlier: mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() first try to split the THP (splitting of course unqueues), or skip it if that fails. Not ideal, but moving charge has been requested, and khugepaged should repair the THP later: nobody wants new custom unqueueing code just for this deprecated case.

The 87eaceb3faa5 commit did have the code to move from one deferred list to another (but was not conscious of its unsafety while refcount non-0); but that was removed by 5.6 commit fac0516b5534 ("mm: thp: don't need care deferred split queue in memcg charge move path"), which argued that the existence of a PMD mapping guarantees that the THP cannot be on a deferred list. As above, false in rare cases, and now commonly false.

Backport to 6.11 should be straightforward. Earlier backports must take care that other _deferred_list fixes and dependencies are included. There is not a strong case for backports, but they can fix cornercases.

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
7th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

November 19, 2024

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2024-53079(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(13)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 7.2~rc5-1~exp1 (498 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (353 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.11.9-1: fixed in 6.11.9-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.11.9-1: fixed in 6.11.9-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(12)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 95 of 212 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 5 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 117 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  7. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  8. 2026-10-26 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  9. 2026-10-25 16:57 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-25 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  11. 2026-10-24 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  12. 2026-10-24 03:21 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 03:21 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-24 03:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4f2j-5xcx-5g9w · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  15. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  16. 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  17. 2026-10-21 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  18. 2026-10-20 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 17:55 UTCOSV refresh
  20. 2026-10-19 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 06:51 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  24. 2026-10-16 16:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  25. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
Show 70 more
  1. 2026-10-14 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 17:39 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-12 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  5. 2026-10-11 21:05 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 15:57 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  8. 2026-10-10 19:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  9. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  10. 2026-10-08 17:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  12. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  13. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  14. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  15. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  16. 2026-10-02 16:21 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  18. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  19. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  20. 2026-09-27 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  21. 2026-09-26 22:42 UTCOSV refresh
  22. 2026-09-26 15:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  23. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  24. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  25. 2026-09-22 14:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  26. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  27. 2026-09-18 19:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  28. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  29. 2026-09-16 05:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  30. 2026-09-15 03:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  31. 2026-09-13 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  32. 2026-09-12 14:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  33. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  34. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  35. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  36. 2026-09-08 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  37. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  38. 2026-09-07 08:18 UTCOSV refresh
  39. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  40. 2026-09-04 13:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  41. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  42. 2026-09-02 14:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  43. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  44. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  45. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  46. 2026-08-28 21:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  47. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  48. 2026-08-26 14:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  49. 2026-08-24 14:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  50. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  51. 2026-08-21 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  52. 2026-08-20 18:01 UTCOSV refresh
  53. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  54. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  55. 2026-08-17 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  56. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  57. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  58. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  59. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  60. 2026-08-12 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  61. 2026-08-11 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  62. 2026-08-10 23:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  63. 2026-08-09 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  64. 2026-08-08 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  65. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  66. 2026-08-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  67. 2026-08-05 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  68. 2026-08-05 11:53 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-08-05 11:53 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-08-05 11:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4f2j-5xcx-5g9w · GitHub CVSS 5.5

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2024-53079?
CVE-2024-53079 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 19, 2024. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/thp: fix deferred split unqueue naming and locking Recent changes are putting more pressure on THP deferred split queues: under load revealing long-standing races, causing list_del corruptions, "Bad page state"s and worse (I…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2024-53079 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2024-53079 was published on November 19, 2024. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 5, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2024-53079 actively exploited?
CVE-2024-53079 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (7th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2024-53079?
CVE-2024-53079 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2024-53079?
A fix for CVE-2024-53079 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2024-53079 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2024-53079

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2024-53079?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.