CVE-2024-40927

HIGHNVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2024-07-12. NVD baseline CVSS 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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

xhci: Handle TD clearing for multiple streams case

When multiple streams are in use, multiple TDs might be in flight when an endpoint is stopped. We need to issue a Set TR Dequeue Pointer for each, to ensure everything is reset properly and the caches cleared. Change the logic so that any N>1 TDs found active for different streams are deferred until after the first one is processed, calling xhci_invalidate_cancelled_tds() again from xhci_handle_cmd_set_deq() to queue another command until we are done with all of them. Also change the error/"should never happen" paths to ensure we at least clear any affected TDs, even if we can't issue a command to clear the hardware cache, and complain loudly with an xhci_warn() if this ever happens.

This problem case dates back to commit e9df17eb1408 ("USB: xhci: Correct assumptions about number of rings per endpoint.") early on in the XHCI driver's life, when stream support was first added. It was then identified but not fixed nor made into a warning in commit 674f8438c121 ("xhci: split handling halted endpoints into two steps"), which added a FIXME comment for the problem case (without materially changing the behavior as far as I can tell, though the new logic made the problem more obvious).

Then later, in commit 94f339147fc3 ("xhci: Fix failure to give back some cached cancelled URBs."), it was acknowledged again.

[Mathias: commit 94f339147fc3 ("xhci: Fix failure to give back some cached cancelled URBs.") was a targeted regression fix to the previously mentioned patch. Users reported issues with usb stuck after unmounting/disconnecting UAS devices. This rolled back the TD clearing of multiple streams to its original state.]

Apparently the commit author was aware of the problem (yet still chose to submit it): It was still mentioned as a FIXME, an xhci_dbg() was added to log the problem condition, and the remaining issue was mentioned in the commit description. The choice of making the log type xhci_dbg() for what is, at this point, a completely unhandled and known broken condition is puzzling and unfortunate, as it guarantees that no actual users would see the log in production, thereby making it nigh undebuggable (indeed, even if you turn on DEBUG, the message doesn't really hint at there being a problem at all).

It took me *months* of random xHC crashes to finally find a reliable repro and be able to do a deep dive debug session, which could all have been avoided had this unhandled, broken condition been actually reported with a warning, as it should have been as a bug intentionally left in unfixed (never mind that it shouldn't have been left in at all).

> Another fix to solve clearing the caches of all stream rings with > cancelled TDs is needed, but not as urgent.

3 years after that statement and 14 years after the original bug was introduced, I think it's finally time to fix it. And maybe next time let's not leave bugs unfixed (that are actually worse than the original bug), and let's actually get people to review kernel commits please.

Fixes xHC crashes and IOMMU faults with UAS devices when handling errors/faults. Easiest repro is to use hdparm to mark an early sector (e.g. 1024) on a disk as bad, then cat /dev/sdX > /dev/null in a loop. At least in the case of JMicron controllers, the read errors end up having to cancel two TDs (for two queued requests to different streams) and the one that didn't get cleared properly ends up faulting the xHC entirely when it tries to access DMA pages that have since been unmapped, referred to by the stale TDs. This normally happens quickly (after two or three loops). After this fix, I left the cat in a loop running overnight and experienced no xHC failures, with all read errors recovered properly. Repro'd and tested on an Apple M1 Mac Mini (dwc3 host).

On systems without an IOMMU, this bug would instead silently corrupt freed memory, making this a ---truncated---

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

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)
Severity78% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 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
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
20th
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 (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-20). 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: 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.

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

July 12, 2024

Last Modified

November 3, 2025

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2024-40927(3)

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

Patch Availability(17)

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

(5 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 7.2~rc5-1~exp1 (496 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
linux-6.16.1.106-3~deb11u1, 6.1.106-3~deb11u2, 6.1.106-3~deb11u3, 6.1.112-1~deb11u1
  • every version up to 6.1.119-1~deb11u1: fixed in 6.1.119-1~deb11u1
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.27-1 ... 6.1.98-1 (25 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.99-1: fixed in 6.1.99-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.9.7-1: fixed in 6.9.7-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.9.7-1: fixed in 6.9.7-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Additional Vendor Advisories

(13)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 37× 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 199 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 104 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-23 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  2. 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  3. 2026-10-21 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  4. 2026-10-20 19:33 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-20 19:33 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-20 19:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-38vr-8qrj-3x4h · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  7. 2026-10-20 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  8. 2026-10-19 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  9. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  10. 2026-10-18 07:08 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-17 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  12. 2026-10-16 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  13. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  14. 2026-10-14 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  15. 2026-10-13 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  16. 2026-10-12 17:48 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-12 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  18. 2026-10-11 21:13 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-11 16:06 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-11 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  21. 2026-10-10 19:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  22. 2026-10-10 14:33 UTCOSV refresh
  23. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  24. 2026-10-08 17:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  25. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
Show 70 more
  1. 2026-10-06 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  2. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  3. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  4. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  5. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  6. 2026-09-30 19:50 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  8. 2026-09-29 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  9. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  10. 2026-09-27 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  11. 2026-09-26 15:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  12. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  13. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  14. 2026-09-22 14:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  15. 2026-09-21 20:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  16. 2026-09-21 00:36 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  18. 2026-09-19 15:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  19. 2026-09-18 19:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  20. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  21. 2026-09-16 05:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  22. 2026-09-15 03:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  23. 2026-09-13 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  24. 2026-09-12 14:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  25. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  26. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  27. 2026-09-08 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  28. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  29. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  30. 2026-09-05 15:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  31. 2026-09-04 13:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  32. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  33. 2026-09-02 14:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  34. 2026-09-01 23:31 UTCOSV refresh
  35. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  36. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  37. 2026-08-28 21:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  38. 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  39. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  40. 2026-08-24 14:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  41. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  42. 2026-08-21 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  43. 2026-08-20 22:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  44. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  45. 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  46. 2026-08-17 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  47. 2026-08-16 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  48. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  49. 2026-08-16 01:37 UTCOSV refresh
  50. 2026-08-15 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  51. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  52. 2026-08-12 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  53. 2026-08-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  54. 2026-08-10 23:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  55. 2026-08-09 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  56. 2026-08-07 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  57. 2026-08-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  58. 2026-08-05 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  59. 2026-08-04 15:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  60. 2026-08-04 10:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  61. 2026-08-03 10:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  62. 2026-08-02 02:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  63. 2026-08-01 04:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  64. 2026-07-31 19:12 UTCOSV refresh
  65. 2026-07-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  66. 2026-07-30 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  67. 2026-07-28 15:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  68. 2026-07-27 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  69. 2026-07-26 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  70. 2026-07-25 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2024-40927?
CVE-2024-40927 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 12, 2024. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xhci: Handle TD clearing for multiple streams case When multiple streams are in use, multiple TDs might be in flight when an endpoint is stopped. We need to issue a Set TR Dequeue Pointer for each, to ensure everything is reset…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2024-40927 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2024-40927 was published on July 12, 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 November 3, 2025; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2024-40927 actively exploited?
CVE-2024-40927 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (20th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2024-40927?
CVE-2024-40927 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.8 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2024-40927?
A fix for CVE-2024-40927 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2024-40927 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-2024-40927

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2024-40927?

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