Vulnerability Database

374,559

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-31445 — linux / linux_kernel

NULL Pointer Dereference

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

mm/damon/core: avoid use of half-online-committed context

One major usage of damon_call() is online DAMON parameters update. It is done by calling damon_commit_ctx() inside the damon_call() callback function. damon_commit_ctx() can fail for two reasons: 1) invalid parameters and 2) internal memory allocation failures. In case of failures, the damon_ctx that attempted to be updated (commit destination) can be partially updated (or, corrupted from a perspective), and therefore shouldn't be used anymore. The function only ensures the damon_ctx object can safely deallocated using damon_destroy_ctx().

The API callers are, however, calling damon_commit_ctx() only after asserting the parameters are valid, to avoid damon_commit_ctx() fails due to invalid input parameters. But it can still theoretically fail if the internal memory allocation fails. In the case, DAMON may run with the partially updated damon_ctx. This can result in unexpected behaviors including even NULL pointer dereference in case of damos_commit_dests() failure [1]. Such allocation failure is arguably too small to fail, so the real world impact would be rare. But, given the bad consequence, this needs to be fixed.

Avoid such partially-committed (maybe-corrupted) damon_ctx use by saving the damon_commit_ctx() failure on the damon_ctx object. For this, introduce damon_ctx->maybe_corrupted field. damon_commit_ctx() sets it when it is failed. kdamond_call() checks if the field is set after each damon_call_control->fn() is executed. If it is set, ignore remaining callback requests and return. All kdamond_call() callers including kdamond_fn() also check the maybe_corrupted field right after kdamond_call() invocations. If the field is set, break the kdamond_fn() main loop so that DAMON sill doesn't use the context that might be corrupted.

[[email protected]: let kdamond_call() with cancel regardless of maybe_corrupted]

  • Published: Apr 22, 2026
  • Updated: May 8, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2026-31445
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.5
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.