Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-53124 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-53124
ublk: reset per-IO canceled flag on each fetch
Published 2026-06-24 (4 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem drivers/block. Debian urgency: unimportant.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-53124 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 | not affected | 6.1.190-1 | Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 13trixie | not affected | 6.12.113-1 | Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.0.10-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.0.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.0.10-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.0.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
If a ublk server starts recovering devices but dies before issuing fetch commands for all IOs, cancellation of the fetch commands that were successfully issued may never complete. This is because the per-IO canceled flag can remain set even after the fetch for that IO has been submitted - the per-IO canceled flags for all IOs in a queue are reset together only once all IOs for that queue have been fetched. So if a nonempty proper subset of the IOs for a queue are fetched when the ublk server dies, the IOs in that subset will never successfully be canceled, as their canceled flags remain set, and this prevents ublk_cancel_cmd from actually calling io_uring_cmd_done on the commands, despite the fact that they are outstanding. Fix this by resetting the per-IO cancel flags immediately when each IO is fetched instead of waiting for all IOs for the queue (which may never happen).
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/block/ublk_drv.c
- What this is
- UBLK USERSPACE BLOCK DRIVERMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/block/ublk_drv.c · linux-block@vger.kernel.org · Maintained
- Kernel module
- ublk_drv
Check it on the machine
grep -w CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBLK /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 ublk_drvPrints 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 does not build this code in 1 release. It does build it in 3 releases, so the answer depends on which release the machine runs.
- bookwormn
- trixie, forky, sidm
- n
- not enabled on any flavour - this release does not build the code
- m
- a loadable module on every flavour - check lsmod, can be blacklisted
- Build switch
- CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBLK
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
- 2026-06-24 (4 months ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.16%, higher than 4.8% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- unimportantsource
- Subsystem
- drivers/block
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 6.15 | 6.18.57 | de05e37d02f3 |
| 6.15 | 7.0.10 | 63335e5a67d8 |
| 6.15 | 7.1 | 0842186d2c4e |
| 6.14.6 | 0 | 0 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-53124, 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.