cve/2024/CVE-2024-50058.md

### [CVE-2024-50058](https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-50058)
![](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Product&message=Linux&color=blue)
![](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Version&message=&color=brightgreen)
![](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Version&message=1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2%20&color=brightgreen)
![](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Vulnerability&message=n%2Fa&color=blue)

### Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() tooCommit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), sothe commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after thatprotection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);"call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is thereason why we do not see lots of these reports.Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P.Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move thisdereference to the if too.I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.

### POC

#### Reference
No PoCs from references.

#### Github
- https://github.com/fkie-cad/nvd-json-data-feeds
- https://github.com/w4zu/Debian_security