Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-45855 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-45855
ata: libata-scsi: avoid Non-NCQ command starvation
Published 2026-05-27 (5 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem drivers/ata. Debian urgency: not yet assigned.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-45855 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | vulnerable | 6.1.190-1 | No fix published anywhere yet, neither in Debian nor upstream for the series bookworm tracks. Watch the Debian tracker page for this CVE. Advisories for bookworm have historically landed a median of 23 days after publication. |
| Debian 13trixie | fixed | 6.12.85-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.12.85-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 6.18.14-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.18.14-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 6.18.14-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.18.14-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
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.
Where it lives
The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.
drivers/ata/libata-core.c
drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
drivers/ata/libata.h
include/linux/libata.h
- What this is
- LIBATA SUBSYSTEM (Serial and Parallel ATA drivers)MAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/ata/ · linux-ide@vger.kernel.org · Maintained
- Kernel module
- libata
Check it on the machine
grep -w CONFIG_ATA /boot/config-$(uname -r)Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.
lsmod | grep -w libataPrints a line if that module is loaded right now, and nothing if it is not. One that is not loaded can still be loaded later by anything that needs it.
Show whether Debian builds this, per release
Debian builds this code. Every release below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships.
- bookworm, trixie, forky, sidb
- b
- built in on some flavours, a module on others
- Build switch
- CONFIG_ATA
From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages
Signals
- Published
- 2026-05-27 (5 months ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.17%, higher than 6.1% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- not yet assignedsource
- Subsystem
- drivers/ata
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 5.10 | 6.12.77 | ce22aaed0112 |
| 5.10 | 6.18.14 | 888cd7e40adb |
| 5.10 | 6.19.4 | 5d61a38a60e6 |
| 5.10 | 7.0 | 0ea84089dbf6 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-45855, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.