CVE-2026-43054
Linux Kernel 5.13 – 5.15.203
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-2026-43054 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (CWE-772) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 2th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26653
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: target: tcm_loop: Drain commands in target_reset handler tcm_loop_target_reset() violates the SCSI EH contract: it returns SUCCESS without draining any in-flight commands. The SCSI EH documentation (scsi_eh.rst) requires that when…
more
a reset handler returns SUCCESS the driver has made lower layers "forget about timed out scmds" and is ready for new commands. Every other SCSI LLD (virtio_scsi, mpt3sas, ipr, scsi_debug, mpi3mr) enforces this by draining or completing outstanding commands before returning SUCCESS. Because tcm_loop_target_reset() doesn't drain, the SCSI EH reuses in-flight scsi_cmnd structures for recovery commands (e.g. TUR) while the target core still has async completion work queued for the old se_cmd. The memset in queuecommand zeroes se_lun and lun_ref_active, causing transport_lun_remove_cmd() to skip its percpu_ref_put(). The leaked LUN reference prevents transport_clear_lun_ref() from completing, hanging configfs LUN unlink forever in D-state: INFO: task rm:264 blocked for more than 122 seconds. rm D 0 264 258 0x00004000 Call Trace: __schedule+0x3d0/0x8e0 schedule+0x36/0xf0 transport_clear_lun_ref+0x78/0x90 [target_core_mod] core_tpg_remove_lun+0x28/0xb0 [target_core_mod] target_fabric_port_unlink+0x50/0x60 [target_core_mod] configfs_unlink+0x156/0x1f0 [configfs] vfs_unlink+0x109/0x290 do_unlinkat+0x1d5/0x2d0 Fix this by making tcm_loop_target_reset() actually drain commands: 1. Issue TMR_LUN_RESET via tcm_loop_issue_tmr() to drain all commands that the target core knows about (those not yet CMD_T_COMPLETE). 2. Use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to iterate all started requests and flush_work() on each se_cmd — this drains any deferred completion work for commands that already had CMD_T_COMPLETE set before the TMR (which the TMR skips via __target_check_io_state()). This is the same pattern used by mpi3mr, scsi_debug, and libsas to drain outstanding commands during reset.
- 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 can discover missing resource releases through dynamic analysis or stress testing.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate explicit resource-release patterns in code.
Resource-quota allocation limits the blast radius of an unreleased-resource exhaustion condition.
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.
Lifecycle management explicitly requires handling resources through end-of-life including release.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent missing resource-release defects during development.
Runtime monitoring may surface resource-exhaustion symptoms but does not address release logic.
Capacity monitoring can detect exhaustion caused by unreleased resources but does not prevent the root defect.
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.
Explicit information-deletion requirements directly address timely release of resources after use.
Secure-SDLC practices include resource-management reviews, yet the control covers the entire lifecycle, not just this weakness.
Secure-coding rules can mandate explicit resource-release patterns, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Change-management processes may catch missing de-allocation during reviews, but the control itself does not target resource lifetime.