CVE-2026-31530 — linux / linux_kernel
Use After FreeIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cxl/port: Fix use after free of parent_port in cxl_detach_ep()
cxl_detach_ep() is called during bottom-up removal when all CXL memory devices beneath a switch port have been removed. For each port in the hierarchy it locks both the port and its parent, removes the endpoint, and if the port is now empty, marks it dead and unregisters the port by calling delete_switch_port(). There are two places during this work where the parent_port may be used after freeing:
First, a concurrent detach may have already processed a port by the time a second worker finds it via bus_find_device(). Without pinning parent_port, it may already be freed when we discover port->dead and attempt to unlock the parent_port. In a production kernel that's a silent memory corruption, with lock debug, it looks like this:
[]DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != get_current()) []WARNING: kernel/locking/mutex.c:949 at __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x1ee/0x310 []Call Trace: []mutex_unlock+0xd/0x20 []cxl_detach_ep+0x180/0x400 [cxl_core] []devm_action_release+0x10/0x20 []devres_release_all+0xa8/0xe0 []device_unbind_cleanup+0xd/0xa0 []really_probe+0x1a6/0x3e0
Second, delete_switch_port() releases three devm actions registered against parent_port. The last of those is unregister_port() and it calls device_unregister() on the child port, which can cascade. If parent_port is now also empty the device core may unregister and free it too. So by the time delete_switch_port() returns, parent_port may be free, and the subsequent device_unlock(&parent_port->dev) operates on freed memory. The kernel log looks same as above, with a different offset in cxl_detach_ep().
Both of these issues stem from the absence of a lifetime guarantee between a child port and its parent port.
Establish a lifetime rule for ports: child ports hold a reference to their parent device until release. Take the reference when the port is allocated and drop it when released. This ensures the parent is valid for the full lifetime of the child and eliminates the use after free window in cxl_detach_ep().
This is easily reproduced with a reload of cxl_acpi in QEMU with CXL devices present.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.3 | 6.12.80 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.21 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.11 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc1 | 7.0-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc2 | 7.0-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc3 | 7.0-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc4 | 7.0-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc5 | 7.0-rc5.x |
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
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.