Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2026-31420
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bridge: mrp: reject zero test interval to avoid OOM panic br_mrp_start_test() and br_mrp_start_in_test() accept the user-supplied interval value from netlink without validation. When interval is 0, usecs_to_jiffies(0) yields 0, causing the delayed work (br_mrp_test_work_expired / br_mrp_in_test_work_expired) to reschedule itself with zero delay. This creates a tight loop on system_percpu_wq that allocates and transmits MRP test frames at maximum rate, exhausting all system memory and causing a kernel panic via OOM deadlock. The same zero-interval issue applies to br_mrp_start_in_test_parse() for interconnect test frames. Use NLA_POLICY_MIN(NLA_U32, 1) in the nla_policy tables for both IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_START_TEST_INTERVAL and IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_START_IN_TEST_INTERVAL, so zero is rejected at the netlink attribute parsing layer before the value ever reaches the workqueue scheduling code. This is consistent with how other bridge subsystems (br_fdb, br_mst) enforce range constraints on netlink attributes.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisShared resources are accessed without correct locking, so concurrent operations interleave into inconsistent — and sometimes exploitable — states, or deadlock the service outright. These bugs are subtle and timing-dependent. The fix is correct, consistent locking or atomic operations around every shared resource.
General guidance for the improper locking class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 5.8, < 6.19.12= 7.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped6.19.12
Linux Kernel 6.19.12 or later, or 7.1+
- Identify your current Linux kernel version using 'uname -r'
- If running kernel >= 5.8 and < 6.19.12, or kernel = 7.0, the system is vulnerable
- Option 1 (preferred): Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.19.12 or later, or to version 7.1 or later which contains the fix
- Option 2: Apply the vendor patch commit c9bc352f716d1bebfe43354bce539ec2d0223b30 to your kernel source and rebuild
- The patch modifies netlink attribute policy in the MRP (Media Redundancy Protocol) bridge code to reject zero values using NLA_POLICY_MIN(NLA_U32, 1) for IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_START_TEST_INTERVAL and IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_START_IN_TEST_INTERVAL attributes
- After applying patch or upgrade, reboot into the new kernel
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-31420 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-31420 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data