Vulnerability Database

356,349

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-45855 — linux / linux_kernel

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ata: libata-scsi: avoid Non-NCQ command starvation

When a non-NCQ command is issued while NCQ commands are being executed, ata_scsi_qc_issue() indicates to the SCSI layer that the command issuing should be deferred by returning SCSI_MLQUEUE_XXX_BUSY. This command deferring is correct and as mandated by the ACS specifications since NCQ and non-NCQ commands cannot be mixed.

However, in the case of a host adapter using multiple submission queues, when the target device is under a constant load of NCQ commands, there are no guarantees that requeueing the non-NCQ command will be executed later and it may be deferred again repeatedly as other submission queues can constantly issue NCQ commands from different CPUs ahead of the non-NCQ command. This can lead to very long delays for the execution of non-NCQ commands, and even complete starvation for these commands in the worst case scenario.

Since the block layer and the SCSI layer do not distinguish between queueable (NCQ) and non queueable (non-NCQ) commands, libata-scsi SAT implementation must ensure forward progress for non-NCQ commands in the presence of NCQ command traffic. This is similar to what SAS HBAs with a hardware/firmware based SAT implementation do.

Implement such forward progress guarantee by limiting requeueing of non-NCQ commands from ata_scsi_qc_issue(): when a non-NCQ command is received and NCQ commands are in-flight, do not force a requeue of the non-NCQ command by returning SCSI_MLQUEUE_XXX_BUSY and instead return 0 to indicate that the command was accepted but hold on to the qc using the new deferred_qc field of struct ata_port.

This deferred qc will be issued using the work item deferred_qc_work running the function ata_scsi_deferred_qc_work() once all in-flight commands complete, which is checked with the port qc_defer() callback return value indicating that no further delay is necessary. This check is done using the helper function ata_scsi_schedule_deferred_qc() which is called from ata_scsi_qc_complete(). This thus excludes this mechanism from all internal non-NCQ commands issued by ATA EH.

When a port deferred_qc is non NULL, that is, the port has a command waiting for the device queue to drain, the issuing of all incoming commands (both NCQ and non-NCQ) is deferred using the regular busy mechanism. This simplifies the code and also avoids potential denial of service problems if a user issues too many non-NCQ commands.

Finally, whenever ata EH is scheduled, regardless of the reason, a deferred qc is always requeued so that it can be retried once EH completes. This is done by calling the function ata_scsi_requeue_deferred_qc() from ata_eh_set_pending(). This avoids the need for any special processing for the deferred qc in case of NCQ error, link or device reset, or device timeout.

  • Published: May 27, 2026
  • Updated: Jun 27, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2026-45855
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.5
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.