CVE-2024-40975

What the bug is

Not all subsystems support a device getting removed while there are still consumers of the device with a reference to the device. One example of this is the regulator subsystem. If a regulator gets unregistered while there are still drivers holding a reference a WARN() at drivers/regulator/core.c:5829 triggers, e.g.: WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1587 at drivers/regulator/core.c:5829 regulator_unregister Hardware name: Intel Corp. VALLEYVIEW C0 PLATFORM/BYT-T FFD8, BIOS BLADE_21.X64.0005.R00.1504101516 FFD8_X64_R_2015_04_10_1516 04/10/2015 RIP: 0010:regulator_unregister Call Trace: <TASK> regulator_unregister devres_release_group i2c_device_remove device_release_driver_internal bus_remove_device device_del device_unregister x86_android_tablet_remove On the Lenovo Yoga Tablet 2 series the bq24190 charger chip also provides a 5V boost converter output for powering USB devices connected to the micro USB port, the bq24190-charger driver exports this as a Vbus regulator. On the 830 (8") and 1050 ("10") models this regulator is controlled by a platform_device and x86_android_tablet_remove() removes platform_device-s before i2c_clients so the consumer gets removed first. But on the 1380 (13") model there is a lc824206xa micro-USB switch connected over I2C and the extcon driver for that controls the regulator. The bq24190 i2c-client *must* be registered first, because that creates the regulator with the lc824206xa listed as its consumer. If the regulator has not been registered yet the lc824206xa driver will end up getting a dummy regulator. Since in this case both the regulator provider and consumer are I2C devices, the only way to ensure that the consumer is unregistered first is to unregister the I2C devices in reverse order of in which they were created. For consistency and to avoid similar problems in the future change x86_android_tablet_remove() to unregister all device types in reverse order.

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/core.c

What this is

X86 PLATFORM ANDROID TABLETS DSDT FIXUP DRIVERMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/ · platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org · Maintained

Kernel module

x86_android_tablets

Check it on the machine

grep -wE 'CONFIG_X86|CONFIG_X86_ANDROID_TABLETS' /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

lsmod | grep -w x86_android_tablets

Prints a line if that module is loaded right now, and nothing if it is not. One that is not loaded can still be loaded later by anything that needs it.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed. The build rule could not be established for 1 release, so nothing is claimed about those.

• bookworm?
• trixieMnot built on amd64/cloud-amd64, arm64/arm64, arm64/arm64-16k, arm64/cloud-arm64, arm64/rt/arm64, armel/rpi, armhf/armmp, armhf/armmp-lpae, armhf/rt/armmp, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64, s390x/s390x
• forky, sidMnot built on amd64/cloud-amd64, arm64/arm64, arm64/arm64-16k, arm64/cloud-arm64, arm64/rt-arm64, armhf/armmp, armhf/armmp-lpae, loong64/loong64, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64, s390x/s390x

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

M

a module where it is built at all; some flavours do not build it

Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.

Build switches

CONFIG_X86, CONFIG_X86_ANDROID_TABLETS

Reads as

all on means the file is compiled; any one off means it is not.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published

2024-07-12 (2 years ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.29%, higher than 20.0% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

not yet assignedsource

Subsystem

drivers/platform

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
5.17	6.6.64	36ff963c133a
5.17	6.9.7	f0c982853d66
5.17	6.10	3de0f2627ef8