CVE-2024-43891 Explained: Azure Linux Attestation and Kernel Tracing Fix

The recent CVE entry for CVE-2024-43891 — a Linux kernel tracing fix described as “tracing: Have format file honor EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED” — prompted a familiar question among Azure customers and enterprise operators: when Microsoft’s MSRC page says “Azure Linux includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected,” does that mean only Azure Linux is at risk? The short, pragmatic answer is: Microsoft has attested that Azure Linux contains the implicated kernel code and therefore requires remediation, but that attestation is product‑scoped and not an exclusivity guarantee. Operators should treat Azure Linux as a confirmed carrier and also verify other Microsoft artifacts in their environments rather than assuming they are safe. This article explains the technical issue, decodes Microsoft’s messaging, evaluates the strengths and limits of the attestation approach, and lays out practical, prioritized steps security teams should take now.

Background / Overview​

CVE-2024-43891 is a kernel tracing subsystem bug that was fixed in upstream Linux in August 2024. The defect is a classic use‑after‑free condition: a shortcut in how the tracing “format” file referenced its backing metadata allowed code paths to access freed event metadata if an event was deleted while a user‑space reader still had the format file open. The patch introduces a helper to check the file meta flags (including EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED) under the event mutex before accessing the underlying data, preventing the stale access. The vulnerability is rated in the Medium severity range (CVSS ≈ 4.7) and the practical impact is denial‑of‑service or kernel memory corruption observed under test harnesses such as the user_events selftests; it requires local access to trigger.
Why this matters beyond the kernel commit: Linux kernel tracing (tracefs/eventfs, ftrace, etc.) is commonly present in many Linux builds and cloud images. A single kernel bug can therefore affect multiple downstream distributions and vendor images depending on which kernel commits and configurations were included when the vendor built their kernels. Microsoft’s MSRC entry for the CVE contains the short FAQ sentence that triggered this conversation: it confirms Azure Linux includes the relevant upstream code and is therefore potentially affected, and it promises to update the CVE mapping if additional Microsoft products are found to ship the component. Read literally, that sentence is accurate — it is an inventory attestation for one product family — but some readers mistakenly interpret it as an exclusivity statement.

---

What the bug actually is — plain technical recap​

• The defect appears in the kernel tracing/eventfs code path that creates per‑event files under tracefs (for example, the files under /sys/kernel/tracing/events/*/format).
• When dynamic events are created and later removed, the kernel maintains meta structures whose lifecycle is protected by event_mutex. When an event is deleted, the file meta structure is flagged as freed (EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED) and other metadata can be released safely under the mutex.
• For efficiency, the “format” file implementation used i_private pointing directly to the traced “call” entry instead of retaining a pointer to the per‑file meta structure. That shortcut meant the format file would access the event data even after the core file meta had been freed, causing a use‑after‑free exposure under racing create/delete + read loops.
• The fix adds a helper that ensures the first reference to the file checks the EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED flag while holding the event_mutex; subsequent accesses under the same lock can use the existing helpers. This prevents dereferencing freed structures.

Impact characteristics:

• Attack vector: Local (an unprivileged user can race create/delete and reads from tracefs).
• Likely outcome: kernel memory corruption or crash (DoS); KASAN (Kernel Address Sanitizer) can detect the UAF during tests.
• Remediation: update kernel to patched upstream/stable releases or install distro/kernel vendor backports.

---

What Microsoft said — and how to read the language​

Microsoft’s Security Response Center (MSRC) entry for the CVE contains the line you quoted: “Azure Linux includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected by this vulnerability,” and it adds that Microsoft began publishing machine‑readable CSAF/VEX attestations as part of a phased rollout and will update the CVE mapping if more Microsoft products are identified. That language performs two functions at once:

• It gives an authoritative inventory attestation for Azure Linux: Microsoft scanned that product and found the upstream code and therefore marked Azure Linux as in‑scope for remediation. That is operationally useful — operators running Azure Linux should treat the product as affected and follow Microsoft’s patches.
• It does not claim exclusivity. The statement is intentionally scoped to the product Microsoft has attested. Absence of a similar attestation for other Microsoft products is not proof those products are free of the vulnerable code; it simply means Microsoft has not yet published an attestation for those products. Microsoft explicitly said it will update its CVE/VEX entries if additional Microsoft products are identified as carriers.

Put another way: the MSRC sentence is a positive confirmation for Azure Linux, not a negative confirmation for everything else. Understanding that distinction changes how you prioritize response work. Treat Azure Linux as a confirmed remediation priority, and treat other Microsoft artifacts as “unknown until verified,” not “safe.”

---

Why the attestation approach is helpful — and where it can mislead​

Strengths

• Actionable signal: A named attestation allows automation pipelines to prioritize remediation for the products an enterprise actually runs. If you manage many images, knowing “Azure Linux is a known carrier” lets you script checks and push updates to Azure Linux hosts immediately.
• Machine‑readable VEX/CSAF: Publishing VEX/CSAF entries allows customers to consume vendor attestations programmatically, reducing manual triage overhead where vendors have completed inventory work. Microsoft’s phased rollout is a positive step in vendor transparency.

Limitations and risks

• Phased coverage is incomplete: Large vendors ship thousands of artifacts; their initial VEX coverage will usually start with a single product family and expand. That means many artifacts remain un‑attested for a time. Treat “not attested” as unknown, not safe.
• Artifact‑level variation matters: Whether an artifact is affected depends on build choices — kernel commit ranges, configuration flags, and selective backports. It’s entirely feasible for one Microsoft image to be attested and another Microsoft image to contain the same vulnerable code if it was built from a kernel that included the upstream commits.
• False comfort can cause missed exposure: If teams interpret Microsoft’s attestation as exclusivity, they risk leaving other artifacts un‑scanned. Examples to audit include WSL2 kernels, custom marketplace images, Azure‑tuned kernel builds, container base images Microsoft publishes, and in‑house images built using Microsoft-supplied tooling.

---

Cross‑checking the technical facts (why we don’t rely on a single source)​

When evaluating a kernel CVE, good practice requires cross‑referencing:

• Upstream kernel announcements and the linux‑cve‑announce list record the fix and the commits merged into stable trees. The kernel mailing list entry for August 2024 lists CVE‑2024‑43891 among the tracing fixes.
• Distribution advisories (Ubuntu’s security tracker, vendor bulletins) list the CVE and the kernel package versions that include the fix. Ubuntu’s CVE page documents the vulnerability and the fix and shows which Ubuntu kernel packages carry the remediation.
• Aggregated vulnerability trackers (OpenCVE, cvefeed, Wiz) collate the CVE descriptions and point to the upstream patches and affected kernel version ranges. Use at least two independent trackers plus upstream as your canonical source-of-truth when mapping coverage across your estate.

Why multiple sources matter: vendor‑specific backports or patch merges can alter which exact kernel package or image is vulnerable. Cross‑checking ensures you patch the right package in your environment rather than relying on a single feed that might lag or mis-map package names.

---

Practical, prioritized response plan (for operators and security teams)​

If you are responsible for Azure or Microsoft-distributed artifacts, follow this prioritized checklist.
Immediate priorities (0–48 hours)

• Patch Azure Linux images now. Microsoft’s attestation identifies Azure Linux asure your Azure Linux VMs, AKS node images, and marketplace images are updated to the patched kernel versions Microsoft or your distro vendor provides. Reboot hosts as required after kernel updates.
• Inventory where you run nodepools, marketplace images, and any ephemeral instances built from Azure Linux images. Use cloud asset inventory APIs and image IDs to verify which instances are in scope.

Follow‑up verification (48–96 hours)

• Scan Microsoft artifacts you run. For each Microsoft-supplied image or binary in your estate (Windows hosts running WSL2, Azure Marketplace images, container images published by Microsoft, platform agents), verify kernel versions and whether the vulnerable commit range appears in their builds. Don’t assume safety simply because a product is not named in MSRC.
• Use SBOMs, VEX/CSAF where available. If Microsoft publishes VEX/CSAF entries for additional products, consume them into your automation to triage further. If a vendor publishes an SBOM for an image, cross‑check the kernel version and module lists.

Remediation and mitigation (short to medium term)

• Patch and reboot. For vulnerable kernels, apply vendor packages that include the fix and reboot according to your change windows. Where rebooting is impossible, consider mitigations such as restricting access to tracing interfaces (/sys/kernel/tracing, perf interfaces) and applying temporary module blacklisting if appropriate and feasible.
• Test recovery. Validate workloads after kernel upgrades and verify that tracing functionality your applications depend upon still behaves as expected.
• Capture evidence and track exposures. If you detect suspicious behavior tied to the vulnerability window (e.g., unexplained kernel OOPS, crashes), preserve logs and images for incident response.

Longer‑term posture improvements

• Integrate VEX/CSAF consumption into patch pipelines so future vendor attestations automatically update your prioritization.
• Enforce SBOM generation for internal images and CI pipelines to make artifact‑level inventory mapping reliable.
• Add kernel component mapping to asset inventories — record kernel versions per image and which modules are compiled in.

---

How to reason about Microsoft’s single‑line attestation: a worked example​

Consider two scenarios in your estate:
Scenario A — Azure Linux VMs: Microsoft has attested Azure Linux includes the implicated: patch and reboot those VMs immediately. The attestation gives direct operational authority to prioritize those hosts.
Scenario B — WSL2 kernels on Windows hosts: Microsoft publishes and maintains a WSL2 kernel tree. That kernel may or may not include the upstream commit range depending on the WSL2 kernel version shipped with the Windows build. Because MSRC’s CVE entry did not yet list WSL2 in the attestation, you must check the WSL kernel version and Microsoft’s WSL release notes or VEX statements (if published). Do not infer safety from the absence of the WSL product in the MSRC line; instead, verify the WSL kernel version and apply updates if the kernel build includes the vulnerable commit.

---

Critical analysis: strengths, shortcomings, and vendor transparency​

Microsoft’s approach — publishing product‑scoped attestations starting with Azure Linux and promising expanded VEX coverage — is a pragmatic and positive step in vendor transparency. Product-level attestations tied to CSAF/VEX are machine consumable and enable automation for customers who depend on vendor attestations. That is a strength when the vendor completes the mapping for all relevant artifacts.
However, the rollout model introduces predictable shortfalls:

• The phased nature means many artifacts will be “not yet attested,” creating an operational burden on customers to scan and verify multiple artifact families.
• Short, one-line FAQ phrasing can be misread as exclusivity by busy practitioners or automated parsers that do not understand the nuance between “attested” and “exhaustively scanned.”
• Large vendors’ inventories are dynamic: new images, marketplace offerings, and tooling can re‑introduce upstream components. Until the vendor’s VEX coverage is comprehensive and tied into SBOMs for each artifact, customers must retain artifact‑level discovery capabilities.

Recommendation for vendors: Where possible, publish two things together for each CVE:

• Product-scoped VEX entries that state “Known Affected/Not Affected/Under Investigation/Fixed.”
• Per‑artifact SBOMs or at least kernel package mappings so customers can automatically map their deployed images to the vendor’s attestation.

Recommendation for customers: Don’t depend solely on vendor attestations until the vendor’s VEX coverage is demonstrably complete for the artifacts you run. Combine vendor attestations with internal SBOMs, image scanning, and kernel version mapping.

---

Final takeaways and concise checklist​

• Microsoft’s MSRC sentence is correct and actionable: Azure Linux has been identified as including the implicated tracing code and should be patched. Treat Azure Linux as a confirmed remediation priority.
• That sentence does not logically prove no other Microsoft product is affected. Absence of an attestation is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Verify other Microsoft artifacts you run (WSL kernels, marketplace images, container images, AKS node images, etc.).
• Cross‑check the technical fix and affected kernel versions against upstream linux‑cve‑announce and at least two vendor/distro advisories (Ubuntu, OpenCVE/cvefeed, or similar) before deciding which kernel packages to deploy.
• Prioritized actions:
• Pances immediately and reboot when safe.
• Inventory other Microsoftkernel versions.
• Integrate SBOM/VEX consumption into your automation to remove ambiguity in future CVEs.

---

Conclusion
CVE‑2024‑43891 is a real kernel tracing use‑after‑free that was fixed upstream in August 2024; Microsoft’s public attestation that “Azure Linux includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected” is an authoritative confirmation for that specific product family and therefore an immediate operational signal for Azure Linux customers. It is not, however, a statement that all Microsoft artifacts are safe — nor is it evidence that Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product that could carry the vulnerable code. In practice, the safest posture is a two‑track approach: act immediately on Azure Linux remediation, and concurrently run artifact‑level discovery and verification for other Microsoft‑supplied images and binaries in your environment. Automate VEX/CSAF and SBOM ingestion so the next time a vendor issues a scoped attestation you can answer “which of my artifacts are affected?” with high confidence rather than guesswork.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center