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.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.8.6, < 5.9 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.9.1, < 6.6.141 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.91 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.18.33 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.0.10 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc3 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc4 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc6 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc7 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 5.9-rc8 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc2 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc3 |
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →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.