CVE-2026-46274: 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

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

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 i

Description from the National Vulnerability Database, published by 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

What it means for a small business

Linux is on the computers, phones or browsers your team uses every day. Turn on automatic updates and restart: most of these fixes only take effect after a restart.

How likely is an attack? The Exploit Prediction Scoring System, run by FIRST (the global association of security response teams), puts the odds of this one being exploited in the next 30 days at 0.14%, higher than 3% of CVEs. That’s low, but low isn’t zero, and the odds jump the day someone publishes an exploit. Scored October 29, 2026, updated daily.

Check your own setup

Website check: reads what your site runs from the outside (WordPress version, plugins it can see, old server software) and matches it against this database.
Server check: what your web server says about itself, and whether that version has known flaws.

Sources

Part of the Huttenlocher Technologies vulnerability database, refreshed twice a day from CISA and the NVD. The title, category and plain-language guidance are ours; check the linked record before acting on a detail. This is general guidance, not a review of your systems.

Weekly security brief

The flaws that hit local websites, every Friday.

One short email: what got exploited this week, which WordPress plugins broke, and what to check. Unsubscribe in one click.