In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: target: Fix multiple LUN_RESET handling
This fixes a bug where an initiator thinks a LUN_RESET has cleaned up
running commands when it hasn't. The bug was added in commit 51ec502a3266
("target: Delete tmr from list before processing").
The problem occurs when:
- We have N I/O cmds running in the target layer spread over 2 sessions.
- The initiator sends a LUN_RESET for each session.
- session1's LUN_RESET loops over all the running commands from both
sessions and moves them to its local drain_task_list.
- session2's LUN_RESET does not see the LUN_RESET from session1 because
the commit above has it remove itself. session2 also does not see any
commands since the other reset moved them off the state lists.
- sessions2's LUN_RESET will then complete with a successful response.
- sessions2's inititor believes the running commands on its session are
now cleaned up due to the successful response and cleans up the running
commands from its side. It then restarts them.
- The commands do eventually complete on the backend and the target
starts to return aborted task statuses for them. The initiator will
either throw a invalid ITT error or might accidentally lookup a new
task if the ITT has been reallocated already.
Fix the bug by reverting the patch, and serialize the execution of
LUN_RESETs and Preempt and Aborts.
Also prevent us from waiting on LUN_RESETs in core_tmr_drain_tmr_list,
because it turns out the original patch fixed a bug that was not
mentioned. For LUN_RESET1 core_tmr_drain_tmr_list can see a second
LUN_RESET and wait on it. Then the second reset will run
core_tmr_drain_tmr_list and see the first reset and wait on it resulting in
a deadlock.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it