{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2024-26935","details":"In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  scsi: core: Fix unremoved procfs host directory regression  Commit fc663711b944 (\"scsi: core: Remove the /proc/scsi/${proc_name} directory earlier\") fixed a bug related to modules loading/unloading, by adding a call to scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on scsi_remove_host(). But that led to a potential duplicate call to the hostdir_rm() routine, since it's also called from scsi_host_dev_release(). That triggered a regression report, which was then fixed by commit be03df3d4bfe (\"scsi: core: Fix a procfs host directory removal regression\"). The fix just dropped the hostdir_rm() call from dev_release().  But it happens that this proc directory is created on scsi_host_alloc(), and that function \"pairs\" with scsi_host_dev_release(), while scsi_remove_host() pairs with scsi_add_host(). In other words, it seems the reason for removing the proc directory on dev_release() was meant to cover cases in which a SCSI host structure was allocated, but the call to scsi_add_host() didn't happen. And that pattern happens to exist in some error paths, for example.  Syzkaller causes that by using USB raw gadget device, error'ing on usb-storage driver, at usb_stor_probe2(). By checking that path, we can see that the BadDevice label leads to a scsi_host_put() after a SCSI host allocation, but there's no call to scsi_add_host() in such path. That leads to messages like this in dmesg (and a leak of the SCSI host proc structure):  usb-storage 4-1:87.51: USB Mass Storage device detected proc_dir_entry 'scsi/usb-storage' already registered WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3519 at fs/proc/generic.c:377 proc_register+0x347/0x4e0 fs/proc/generic.c:376  The proper fix seems to still call scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on dev_release(), but guard that with the state check for SHOST_CREATED; there is even a comment in scsi_host_dev_release() detailing that: such conditional is meant for cases where the SCSI host was allocated but there was no calls to {add,remove}_host(), like the usb-storage case.  This is what we propose here and with that, the error path of usb-storage does not trigger the warning anymore.","modified":"2026-09-01T20:05:23.439244527Z","published":"2024-05-01T06:15:08.240Z","upstream":["CVE-2024-26935"],"references":[{"type":"ADVISORY","url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-26935"}],"affected":[{"package":{"name":"linux","ecosystem":"Debian:12","purl":"pkg:deb/debian/linux?arch=source&distro=bookworm"},"ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"6.1.85-1"}]}],"versions":["6.1.27-1","6.1.37-1","6.1.38-1","6.1.38-2","6.1.38-2~bpo11+1","6.1.38-3","6.1.38-4","6.1.38-4~bpo11+1","6.1.52-1","6.1.55-1","6.1.55-1~bpo11+1","6.1.64-1","6.1.66-1","6.1.67-1","6.1.69-1","6.1.69-1~bpo11+1","6.1.76-1","6.1.76-1~bpo11+1","6.1.82-1"],"ecosystem_specific":{"urgency":"not yet assigned"},"database_specific":{"source":"https://storage.googleapis.com/debian-osv/debian-cve-osv/DEBIAN-CVE-2024-26935.json"}},{"package":{"name":"linux","ecosystem":"Debian:13","purl":"pkg:deb/debian/linux?arch=source&distro=trixie"},"ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"6.7.12-1"}]}],"ecosystem_specific":{"urgency":"not yet assigned"},"database_specific":{"source":"https://storage.googleapis.com/debian-osv/debian-cve-osv/DEBIAN-CVE-2024-26935.json"}},{"package":{"name":"linux","ecosystem":"Debian:14","purl":"pkg:deb/debian/linux?arch=source&distro=forky"},"ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"6.7.12-1"}]}],"ecosystem_specific":{"urgency":"not yet assigned"},"database_specific":{"source":"https://storage.googleapis.com/debian-osv/debian-cve-osv/DEBIAN-CVE-2024-26935.json"}}],"schema_version":"1.9.0","severity":[{"type":"CVSS_V3","score":"CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H"}]}