<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 22:41:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2023-53586 — scsi: target: Fix multiple LUN_RESET handling</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2023-53586</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;scsi: target: Fix multiple LUN_RESET handling&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This fixes a bug where an initiator thinks a LUN_RESET has cleaned up
running commands when it hasn&amp;#39;t. The bug was added in commit 51ec502a3266
(&amp;#34;target: Delete tmr from list before processing&amp;#34;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem occurs when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. We have N I/O cmds running in the target layer spread over 2 sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The initiator sends a LUN_RESET for each session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. session1&amp;#39;s LUN_RESET loops over all the running commands from both
    sessions and moves them to its local drain_task_list.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. session2&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;5. sessions2&amp;#39;s LUN_RESET will then complete with a successful response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;6. sessions2&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;7. 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix the bug by reverting the patch, and serialize the execution of
LUN_RESETs and Preempt and Aborts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also prevent us from waiting on LUN_RES…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;scsi: target: Fix multiple LUN_RESET handling&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This fixes a bug where an initiator thinks a LUN_RESET has cleaned up
running commands when it hasn&amp;#39;t. The bug was added in commit 51ec502a3266
(&amp;#34;target: Delete tmr from list before processing&amp;#34;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem occurs when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. We have N I/O cmds running in the target layer spread over 2 sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The initiator sends a LUN_RESET for each session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. session1&amp;#39;s LUN_RESET loops over all the running commands from both
    sessions and moves them to its local drain_task_list.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. session2&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;5. sessions2&amp;#39;s LUN_RESET will then complete with a successful response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;6. sessions2&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;7. 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix the bug by reverting the patch, and serialize the execution of
LUN_RESETs and Preempt and Aborts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also prevent us from waiting on LUN_RES…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2023-53586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
