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.)
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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