# CVE-2024-46695: selinux,smack: don't bypass permissions check in inode_setsecctx hook

> A root user on an NFS client can bypass security label restrictions on files exported with root squashing, allowing unauthorized modification of security contexts.

- **Severity:** Critical 9.8 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Not needed
- **Attackable:** Over the internet
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 13 Sep 2024
- **Updated:** 5 Aug 2026
- **Also known as:** AZL-49338, BELL-CVE-2024-46695, DEBIAN-CVE-2024-46695, GHSA-p594-vh26-gh4w, UBUNTU-CVE-2024-46695

## What is CVE-2024-46695?

CVE-2024-46695 is a critical missing authorization vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 13 Sep 2024. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

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

selinux,smack: don't bypass permissions check in inode_setsecctx hook

Marek Gresko reports that the root user on an NFS client is able to
change the security labels on files on an NFS filesystem that is
exported with root squashing enabled.

The end of the kerneldoc comment for __vfs_setxattr_noperm() states:

 *  This function requires the caller to lock the inode's i_mutex before it
 *  is executed. It also assumes that the caller will make the appropriate
 *  permission checks.

nfsd_setattr() does do permissions checking via fh_verify() and
nfsd_permission(), but those don't do all the same permissions checks
that are done by security_inode_setxattr() and its related LSM hooks do.

Since nfsd_setattr() is the only consumer of security_inode_setsecctx(),
simplest solution appears to be to replace the call to
__vfs_setxattr_noperm() with a call to __vfs_setxattr_locked().  This
fixes the above issue and has the added benefit of causing nfsd to
recall conflicting delegations on a file when a client tries to change
its security label.

Weakness: CWE-276 (Incorrect Default Permissions)

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2024-46695?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2024-46695?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2024-46695 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2024-46695 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2024-46695 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2024-46695 is a critical missing authorization vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 13 Sep 2024. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2024-46695 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-46695/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-46695/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-46695
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46695
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2024-46695

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-46695/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.