日本語

CVE-2026-23355 : 詳細

CVE-2026-23355

5.5
/
中
0.02%V4
2026-03-25
11h16 +00:00
Local
2026-10-30
13h18 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
特定のCVEの通知
特定のCVEの変更情報をいち早くお届けします。
通知を管理する

CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ata: libata: cancel pending work after clearing deferred_qc Syzbot reported a WARN_ON() in ata_scsi_deferred_qc_work(), caused by ap->ops->qc_defer() returning non-zero before issuing the deferred qc. ata_scsi_schedule_deferred_qc() is called during each command completion. This function will check if there is a deferred QC, and if ap->ops->qc_defer() returns zero, meaning that it is possible to queue the deferred qc at this time (without being deferred), then it will queue the work which will issue the deferred qc. Once the work get to run, which can potentially be a very long time after the work was scheduled, there is a WARN_ON() if ap->ops->qc_defer() returns non-zero. While we hold the ap->lock both when assigning and clearing deferred_qc, and the work itself holds the ap->lock, the code currently does not cancel the work after clearing the deferred qc. This means that the following scenario can happen: 1) One or several NCQ commands are queued. 2) A non-NCQ command is queued, gets stored in ap->deferred_qc. 3) Last NCQ command gets completed, work is queued to issue the deferred qc. 4) Timeout or error happens, ap->deferred_qc is cleared. The queued work is currently NOT canceled. 5) Port is reset. 6) One or several NCQ commands are queued. 7) A non-NCQ command is queued, gets stored in ap->deferred_qc. 8) Work is finally run. Yet at this time, there is still NCQ commands in flight. The work in 8) really belongs to the non-NCQ command in 2), not to the non-NCQ command in 7). The reason why the work is executed when it is not supposed to, is because it was never canceled when ap->deferred_qc was cleared in 4). Thus, ensure that we always cancel the work after clearing ap->deferred_qc. Another potential fix would have been to let ata_scsi_deferred_qc_work() do nothing if ap->ops->qc_defer() returns non-zero. However, canceling the work when clearing ap->deferred_qc seems slightly more logical, as we hold the ap->lock when clearing ap->deferred_qc, so we know that the work cannot be holding the lock. (The function could be waiting for the lock, but that is okay since it will do nothing if ap->deferred_qc is not set.)

CVE の情報

関連する弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名 出典
CWE Other 情報がありません。

メトリクス

メトリクス スコア 深刻度 CVSS ベクター 出典
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSSは脆弱性が悪用される可能性を予測するスコアリングモデルです。

EPSSスコア

EPSSモデルは0から1（0〜100%）の確率スコアを算出します。スコアが高いほど、脆弱性が悪用される可能性が高いことを示します。

EPSSパーセンタイル

パーセンタイルはCVEをEPSSスコアで順位付けするために使用されます。例えば、EPSSスコアで95パーセンタイルにあるCVEは、他の95%のCVEよりも悪用される可能性が高いことを意味します。パーセンタイルはCVEのEPSSスコアを他のCVEと比較するために使用されます。
EPSS First.org

関連製品

構成 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version ～から（含む） 6.18.14 ～まで（含まない） 6.18.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version ～から（含む） 6.19.4 ～まで（含まない） 6.19.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

参考資料

CVE Findに掲載されている情報は、慎重に選定された複数の参照ソースから取得されています。CVEデータはMITRE Corporationおよび国家脆弱性データベース（NVD）が提供しています。既知の悪用された脆弱性（KEV）カタログはサイバーセキュリティ・インフラセキュリティ庁（CISA）から、EPSSスコアはFIRST.orgから取得しています。また、ソフトウェアの弱点（CWE）および共通攻撃パターン（CAPEC）に関するデータはMITRE Corporationが管理し、ハードウェアおよびソフトウェア構成（CPE）に関する情報はNVDが提供しています。