CVE-2026-31507
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: net/smc: fix double-free of smc_spd_priv when tee() duplicates splice pipe buffer smc_rx_splice() allocates one smc_spd_priv per pipe_buffer and stores the pointer in pipe_buffer.private. The pipe_buf_operations for these buffers used .get = generic_pipe_buf_get, which only increments the page reference count when tee(2) duplicates a pipe buffer. The smc_spd_priv pointer itself was not handled, so after tee() both the original and the cloned pipe_buffer share the same smc_spd_priv *. When both pipes are subsequently released, smc_rx_pipe_buf_release() is called twice against the same object: 1st call: kfree(priv) sock_put(sk) smc_rx_update_cons() [correct] 2nd call: kfree(priv) sock_put(sk) smc_rx_update_cons() [UAF] KASAN reports a slab-use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release(), which then escalates to a NULL-pointer dereference and kernel panic via smc_rx_update_consumer() when it chases the freed priv->smc pointer: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x78/0x2a0 Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004a45740 by task smc_splice_tee_/74 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x53/0x70 print_report+0xce/0x650 kasan_report+0xc6/0x100 smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x78/0x2a0 free_pipe_info+0xd4/0x130 pipe_release+0x142/0x160 __fput+0x1c6/0x490 __x64_sys_close+0x4f/0x90 do_syscall_64+0xa6/0x1a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000020 RIP: 0010:smc_rx_update_consumer+0x8d/0x350 Call Trace: <TASK> smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x121/0x2a0 free_pipe_info+0xd4/0x130 pipe_release+0x142/0x160 __fput+0x1c6/0x490 __x64_sys_close+0x4f/0x90 do_syscall_64+0xa6/0x1a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception Beyond the memory-safety problem, duplicating an SMC splice buffer is semantically questionable: smc_rx_update_cons() would advance the consumer cursor twice for the same data, corrupting receive-window accounting. A refcount on smc_spd_priv could fix the double-free, but the cursor-accounting issue would still need to be addressed separately. The .get callback is invoked by both tee(2) and splice_pipe_to_pipe() for partial transfers; both will now return -EFAULT. Users who need to duplicate SMC socket data must use a copy-based read path.
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 analysisThe same block of memory is freed twice, corrupting the allocator's bookkeeping in ways an attacker can shape toward code execution. It usually stems from tangled ownership of a pointer. The fix is clear, single ownership of each allocation and clearing pointers once they are freed.
General guidance for the double free 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>= 4.18.1, < 5.10.253>= 5.11, < 5.15.203>= 5.16, < 6.1.168>= 6.2, < 6.6.131>= 6.7, < 6.12.80>= 6.13, < 6.18.21>= 6.19, < 6.19.11= 4.18= 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped5.10.2535.15.2036.1.168
5.10.253, 5.15.203, 6.1.168, or 6.6.131 (or later stable releases in each respective branch)
- Identify the current running kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Check if the running kernel version falls within the affected range: 4.18.1 to 5.10.252, 5.11 to 5.15.202, 5.16 to 6.1.167, or 6.2 to 6.6.130
- If affected, schedule a maintenance window for kernel update
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a fixed release: 5.10.253 or later for 5.10.x, 5.15.203 or later for 5.15.x, 6.1.168 or later for 6.1.x, or 6.6.131 or later for 6.6.x
- Reboot the system into the new kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the SMC submodule contains the patch commit 24dd586bb4cbba1889a50abe74143817a095c1c9
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-2026-31507 — 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-2026-31507 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