In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: writeback: Fix use after free in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() has a loop like: wb_get(new_wb); while (1) { list = llist_del_all(&new_wb->switch_wbs_ctxs); /* Nothing to do? */ if (!list) break; ... process the items ... } Now adding of items to the list looks like: wb_queue_isw() if (llist_add(&isw->list, &wb->switch_wbs_ctxs)) queue_work(isw_wq, &wb->switch_work); Because inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() loops when processing isw items, it can happen that wb->switch_work is pending while wb->switch_wbs_ctxs is empty. This is a problem because in that case wb can get freed (no isw items -> no wb reference) while the work is still pending causing use-after-free issues. We cannot just fix this by cancelling work when freeing wb because that could still trigger problematic 0 -> 1 transitions on wb refcount due to wb_get() in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). It could be all handled with more careful code but that seems unnecessarily complex so let's avoid that until it is proven that the looping actually brings practical benefit. Just remove the loop from inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() instead. That way when wb_queue_isw() queues work, we are guaranteed we have added the first item to wb->switch_wbs_ctxs and nobody is going to remove it (and drop the wb reference it holds) until the queued work runs.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: writeback: Fix use after free in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() has a loop like: wb_get(new_wb); while (1) { list = llist_del_all(&new_wb->switch_wbs_ctxs); /* Nothing to do? */ if (!list) break; ... process the items ... } Now adding of items to the list looks like: wb_queue_isw() if (llist_add(&isw->list, &wb->switch_wbs_ctxs)) queue_work(isw_wq, &wb->switch_work); Because inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() loops when processing isw items, it can happen that wb->switch_work is pending while wb->switch_wbs_ctxs is empty. This is a problem because in that case wb can get freed (no isw items -> no wb reference) while the work is still pending causing use-after-free issues. We cannot just fix this by cancelling work when freeing wb because that could still trigger problematic 0 -> 1 transitions on wb refcount due to wb_get() in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). It could be all handled with more careful code but that seems unnecessarily complex so let's avoid that until it is proven that the looping actually brings practical benefit. Just remove the loop from inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() instead. That way when wb_queue_isw() queues work, we are guaranteed we have added the first item to wb->switch_wbs_ctxs and nobody is going to remove it (and drop the wb reference it holds) until the queued work runs.
Review the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
CVE-2026-31703 is listed in the HOL Guard supply-chain feed, but affected software is not mapped to a package. Review the upstream advisory for the affected product and vendor guidance. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: writeback: Fix use after free in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() has a loop like: wb_get(new_wb); while (1) { list = llist_del_all(&new_wb->switch_wbs_ctxs); /* Nothing to do? */ if (!list) break; ... process the items ... } Now adding of items to the list looks like: wb_queue_isw() if (llist_add(&isw->list, &wb->switch_wbs_ctxs)) queue_work(isw_wq, &wb->switch_work); Because inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() loops when processing isw items, it can happen that wb->switch_work is pending while wb->switch_wbs_ctxs is empty. This is a problem because in that case wb can get freed (no isw items -> no wb reference) while the work is still pending causing use-after-free issues. We cannot just fix this by cancelling work when freeing wb because that could still trigger problematic 0 -> 1 transitions on wb refcount due to wb_get() in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). It could be all handled with more careful code but that seems unnecessarily complex so let's avoid that until it is proven that the looping actually brings practical benefit. Just remove the loop from inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() instead. That way when wb_queue_isw() queues work, we are guaranteed we have added the first item to wb->switch_wbs_ctxs and nobody is going to remove it (and drop the wb reference it holds) until the queued work runs.
Affected software not mapped. Review the upstream record for vendor-specific product and version guidance.
Reported by NVD (nvd).
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL GuardReview the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
CVE-2026-31703 is listed in the HOL Guard supply-chain feed, but affected software is not mapped to a package. Review the upstream advisory for the affected product and vendor guidance. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: writeback: Fix use after free in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() has a loop like: wb_get(new_wb); while (1) { list = llist_del_all(&new_wb->switch_wbs_ctxs); /* Nothing to do? */ if (!list) break; ... process the items ... } Now adding of items to the list looks like: wb_queue_isw() if (llist_add(&isw->list, &wb->switch_wbs_ctxs)) queue_work(isw_wq, &wb->switch_work); Because inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() loops when processing isw items, it can happen that wb->switch_work is pending while wb->switch_wbs_ctxs is empty. This is a problem because in that case wb can get freed (no isw items -> no wb reference) while the work is still pending causing use-after-free issues. We cannot just fix this by cancelling work when freeing wb because that could still trigger problematic 0 -> 1 transitions on wb refcount due to wb_get() in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). It could be all handled with more careful code but that seems unnecessarily complex so let's avoid that until it is proven that the looping actually brings practical benefit. Just remove the loop from inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() instead. That way when wb_queue_isw() queues work, we are guaranteed we have added the first item to wb->switch_wbs_ctxs and nobody is going to remove it (and drop the wb reference it holds) until the queued work runs.
Affected software not mapped. Review the upstream record for vendor-specific product and version guidance.
Reported by NVD (nvd).
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL Guard