# CVE-2026-31456: mm/pagewalk: fix race between concurrent split and refault > A race condition in the Linux kernel memory management allows a local attacker to trigger a kernel crash via concurrent page table operations. - **Severity:** Medium 4.7 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Any signed-in user - **Attackable:** Local or same network only - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** Yes - **Published:** 22 Apr 2026 - **Updated:** 17 Jun 2026 - **Also known as:** BELL-CVE-2026-31456, DEBIAN-CVE-2026-31456, GHSA-x569-m75g-6pr8, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-13-CVE-2026-31456, UBUNTU-CVE-2026-31456 ## What is CVE-2026-31456? CVE-2026-31456 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 22 Apr 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. ### Official description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/pagewalk: fix race between concurrent split and refault The splitting of a PUD entry in walk_pud_range() can race with a concurrent thread refaulting the PUD leaf entry causing it to try walking a PMD range that has disappeared. An example and reproduction of this is to try reading numa_maps of a process while VFIO-PCI is setting up DMA (specifically the vfio_pin_pages_remote call) on a large BAR for that process. This will trigger a kernel BUG: vfio-pci 0000:03:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002) BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffa23980000000 PGD 0 P4D 0 Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI ... RIP: 0010:walk_pgd_range+0x3b5/0x7a0 Code: 8d 43 ff 48 89 44 24 28 4d 89 ce 4d 8d a7 00 00 20 00 48 8b 4c 24 28 49 81 e4 00 00 e0 ff 49 8d 44 24 ff 48 39 c8 4c 0f 43 e3 <49> f7 06 9f ff ff ff 75 3b 48 8b 44 24 20 48 8b 40 28 48 85 c0 74 RSP: 0018:ffffac23e1ecf808 EFLAGS: 00010287 RAX: 00007f44c01fffff RBX: 00007f4500000000 RCX: 00007f44ffffffff RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000ffffffffff000 RDI: ffffffff93378fe0 RBP: ffffac23e1ecf918 R08: 0000000000000004 R09: ffffa23980000000 R10: 0000000000000020 R11: 0000000000000004 R12: 00007f44c0200000 R13: 00007f44c0000000 R14: ffffa23980000000 R15: 00007f44c0000000 FS: 00007fe884739580(0000) GS:ffff9b7d7a9c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: ffffa23980000000 CR3: 000000c0650e2005 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: __walk_page_range+0x195/0x1b0 walk_page_vma+0x62/0xc0 show_numa_map+0x12b/0x3b0 seq_read_iter+0x297/0x440 seq_read+0x11d/0x140 vfs_read+0xc2/0x340 ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x68/0x130 ? get_page_from_freelist+0x5c2/0x17e0 ? mas_store_prealloc+0x17e/0x360 ? vma_set_page_prot+0x4c/0xa0 ? __alloc_pages_noprof+0x14e/0x2d0 ? __mod_memcg_lruvec_state+0x8d/0x140 ? __lruvec_stat_mod_folio+0x76/0xb0 ? __folio_mod_stat+0x26/0x80 ? do_anonymous_page+0x705/0x900 ? __handle_mm_fault+0xa8d/0x1000 ? __count_memcg_events+0x53/0xf0 ? handle_mm_fault+0xa5/0x360 ? do_user_addr_fault+0x342/0x640 ? arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare.constprop.0+0x16/0xa0 ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0x24/0x100 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e RIP: 0033:0x7fe88464f47e Code: c0 e9 b6 fe ff ff 50 48 8d 3d be 07 0b 00 e8 69 01 02 00 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 14 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 5a c3 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 48 83 ec 28 RSP: 002b:00007ffe6cd9a9b8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000020000 RCX: 00007fe88464f47e RDX: 0000000000020000 RSI: 00007fe884543000 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 00007fe884543000 R08: 00007fe884542010 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: fffffffffffffbc5 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 0000000000020000 R15: 0000000000020000 Fix this by validating the PUD entry in walk_pmd_range() using a stable snapshot (pudp_get()). If the PUD is not present or is a leaf, retry the walk via ACTION_AGAIN instead of descending further. This mirrors the retry logic in walk_pte_range(), which lets walk_pmd_range() retry if the PTE is not being got by pte_offset_map_lock(). Weakness: CWE-362 (Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization) ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-31456? It affects 1 product. Products: Linux kernel. ## How do I fix CVE-2026-31456? Apply the vendor's patch. ## Is CVE-2026-31456 being exploited? There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-31456 in the wild and no public exploit code. ## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel - [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild) ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2026-31456 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2026-31456 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 22 Apr 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-31456 in the wild and no public exploit code. Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page. Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-31456/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-31456/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-31456 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31456 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2026-31456 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-31456/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.