CVE-2024-53079

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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, ghsa, nvd
5.5
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: 0%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

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
5.5(medium)
EG Risk
25(Track)
EG Risk 25/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity55% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability0% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS
6.7%
KEV
Not listed

Published

November 19, 2024

Last Modified

October 1, 2025

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.

Weakness Classification(1)

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

All Vendor Advisories

(13)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 42× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 101 total refreshes for this CVE.

  1. 2026-07-23 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-23 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-23 02:43 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-07-22 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-20 17:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-19 14:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-19 14:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-19 02:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-19 02:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-16 17:02 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-15 16:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-15 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-15 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-13 19:07 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-07-13 06:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-12 05:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-11 08:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-09 19:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-09 19:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-08 15:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-07 13:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-07 13:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-06 16:26 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-07-06 16:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-06 02:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-05 02:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-04 06:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-04 06:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-01 15:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-06-29 14:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-06-28 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-06-28 04:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-06-28 04:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-06-27 03:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-25 16:16 UTCOSV refresh
  16. 2026-06-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-06-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-23 21:32 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-22 14:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-22 14:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-21 14:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-21 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-19 19:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-18 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-06-18 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-06-17 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-17 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-16 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  32. 2026-06-16 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-15 17:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-14 23:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-12 23:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-12 23:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-11 13:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-10 22:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-08 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-08 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-08 06:28 UTCOSV refresh
  46. 2026-06-07 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-07 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-06-04 13:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-06-04 13:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-06-02 20:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  57. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-05-31 00:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-05-31 00:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-05-29 13:43 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  66. 2026-05-28 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  67. 2026-05-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  68. 2026-05-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-05-26 13:43 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-05-26 13:43 UTCEPSS rescore
  71. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  72. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  73. 2026-05-26 07:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-05-23 17:55 UTCEG score recompute
  75. 2026-05-23 17:55 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2024-53079?
CVE-2024-53079 is a medium vulnerability 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 CVE-2024-53079 disclosed?
CVE-2024-53079 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on November 19, 2024, with the most recent update on October 1, 2025. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2024-53079 actively exploited?
CVE-2024-53079 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 6.7% percentile likelihood of exploitation in the next 30 days — higher percentiles indicate greater predicted risk.
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?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2024-53079, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for 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.