CVE-2026-23355 | ata: libata: cancel pending work after clearing deferred_qc

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.)

Published: 2026-03-25 Last update: 2026-04-24 Assigner: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
NVD Status：Analyzed，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2026-23355 is rated Low Risk (23.5/100): CVSS Medium severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.02%). Monitor for updates and reassess as exploit intelligence or EPSS changes.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2026-23355

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-03-25 — 0.02% —

Full EPSS history (1 record total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2026-23355

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
5.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:L)
They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:L)
A normal user session is enough; they don’t have to be admin.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N)
Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
 1.8 3.6 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2026-23355

GitHub Security Advisory for CVE-2026-23355

GHSA-8672-3h73-hv9p · Severity: medium — In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ata: libata: cancel pending...

OS Trackers for CVE-2026-23355

vendor priority summary link
debian unimportant CVE-2026-23355 unimportant priority: Debian including 1 source packages (linux), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): resolved 5. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-23355
redhat medium — https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23355
suse medium CVE-2026-23355 severity moderate: SUSE including 26 source package names (cluster-md-kmp-default, dlm-kmp-default, …), 226 product×package rows across 40 product lines (SUSE Linux Enterprise High Availability Extension 15 SP7, SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS, … (40 product lines)): Known Not Affected 226. https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23355/
ubuntu medium CVE-2026-23355 medium priority: Ubuntu including 157 source packages (linux, linux-allwinner-5.19, …), 1256 status rows across 8 suites (bionic, focal, jammy, noble, questing, trusty, upstream, xenial): DNE 871, ignored 166, not-affected 136, released 83. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-23355

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2026-23355

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
linux linux_kernel >= 6.18.14, < 6.18.18 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel >= 6.19.4, < 6.19.7 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel 7.0 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:7.0:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*
linux linux_kernel 7.0 cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:7.0:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2026-23355

cvelogic Threat Intelligence