CVE-2026-23356
Linux Kernel 3.10.1 – 5.10.253
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-23356 is a medium-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-15331
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: fix "LOGIC BUG" in drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock() Even though we check that we "should" be able to do lc_get_cumulative() while holding the device->al_lock spinlock, it may still fail, if some other…
more
code path decided to do lc_try_lock() with bad timing. If that happened, we logged "LOGIC BUG for enr=...", but still did not return an error. The rest of the code now assumed that this request has references for the relevant activity log extents. The implcations are that during an active resync, mutual exclusivity of resync versus application IO is not guaranteed. And a potential crash at this point may not realizs that these extents could have been target of in-flight IO and would need to be resynced just in case. Also, once the request completes, it will give up activity log references it does not even hold, which will trigger a BUG_ON(refcnt == 0) in lc_put(). Fix: Do not crash the kernel for a condition that is harmless during normal operation: also catch "e->refcnt == 0", not only "e == NULL" when being noisy about "al_complete_io() called on inactive extent %u\n". And do not try to be smart and "guess" whether something will work, then be surprised when it does not. Deal with the fact that it may or may not work. If it does not, remember a possible "partially in activity log" state (only possible for requests that cross extent boundaries), and return an error code from drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock(). A latter call for the same request will then resume from where we left off.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.
Secure architecture principles discourage the use of assertions for runtime error handling that an attacker could exploit.
Secure coding standards explicitly ban the use of assert() or equivalent statements that can be triggered by external input.