Skip to content

CVE-2024-50014

Is CVE-2024-50014 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-908
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix access to uninitialised lock in fc replay path The following kernel trace can be triggered with fstest generic/629 when executed against a filesystem with fast-commit feature enabled: 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: 0 PID: 866 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.10.0+ #11 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-3-gd478f380-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x66/0x90 register_lock_class+0x759/0x7d0 __lock_acquire+0x85/0x2630 ? __find_get_block+0xb4/0x380 lock_acquire+0xd1/0x2d0 ? __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 _raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x40 ? __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 ext4_reserve_inode_write+0x61/0xb0 __ext4_mark_inode_dirty+0x79/0x270 ? ext4_ext_replay_set_iblocks+0x2f8/0x450 ext4_ext_replay_set_iblocks+0x330/0x450 ext4_fc_replay+0x14c8/0x1540 ? jread+0x88/0x2e0 ? rcu_is_watching+0x11/0x40 do_one_pass+0x447/0xd00 jbd2_journal_recover+0x139/0x1b0 jbd2_journal_load+0x96/0x390 ext4_load_and_init_journal+0x253/0xd40 ext4_fill_super+0x2cc6/0x3180 ... In the replay path there's an attempt to lock sbi->s_bdev_wb_lock in function ext4_check_bdev_write_error(). Unfortunately, at this point this spinlock has not been initialized yet. Moving it's initialization to an earlier point in __ext4_fill_super() fixes this splat.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2024-50014
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50014/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50014)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50014"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50014/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2024-50014"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Related CVEs

    Same weakness: CWE-908.