CVE-2026-46274io-wq: check that the predecessor is hashed in io_wq_remove_pending()
Updated under an hour ago ()
Does this affect you?
It affects Linux and 1 other product. Add what you run to find out whether that includes you.
No exploitation reported and no EPSS estimate yet.
Do this next
Free account, 1 product
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io-wq: check that the predecessor is hashed in io_wq_remove_pending() io_wq_remove_pending() needs to fix up wq->hash_tail[] if the cancelled work was the tail of its hash bucket. When doing this, it checks whether the preceding entry in acct->work_list has the same hash value, but never checks that the predecessor is hashed at all. io_get_work_hash() is simply atomic_read(&work->flags) >> IO_WQ_HASH_SHIFT, and the hash bits are never set for non-hashed work, so it returns 0. Thus, when a hashed bucket-0 work is cancelled while a non-hashed work is its list predecessor, the check spuriously passes and a pointer to the non-hashed io_kiocb is stored in wq->hash_tail[0]. Because non-hashed work is dequeued via the fast path in io_get_next_work(), which never touches hash_tail[], the stale pointer is never cleared. Therefore, after the non-hashed io_kiocb completes and is freed back to req_cachep, wq->hash_tail[0] is a dangling pointer. The io_wq is per-task (tctx->io_wq) and survives ring open/close, so the dangling pointer persists for the lifetime of the task; the next hashed bucket-0 enqueue dereferences it in io_wq_insert_work() and wq_list_add_after() writes through freed memory. Add the missing io_wq_is_hashed() check so a non-hashed predecessor never inherits a hash_tail[] slot.
- CVSS
- 7.8 HIGH (v3.1, CNA)CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Weakness (CWE)
- Not given
- Known exploited
- Not in CISA's KEV catalog
- EPSS (exploitation in the next 30 days)
- Not loaded for this CVE
- Assigned by
- Linux
- NVD analysis
- Analyzed
- Record last updated
- Aug 5, 2026
- First seen by InfoSec Signals
- Oct 9, 2026
The CVE record on cve.org NVD's entry
The CVE record is authoritative. Products marked “from the name” were identified from the CNA's free-text names, not a CPE, and are matched less certainly. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.