UBUNTU-CVE-2026-97536 (CVE-2026-97536)

Vulnerability from osv_ubuntu – Published: 2026-09-25 11:17 – Updated: 2026-11-13 17:59 – Source website
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: qla2xxx: Fix use-after-free of qpair work on queue teardown The response queue MSI-X handler qla2xxx_msix_rsp_q() schedules qla_do_work() via queue_work(ha->wq, &qpair->q_work). qla_do_work() dereferences the qpair (vha, rsp) and takes qpair->qp_lock. During teardown, qla2xxx_delete_qpair() deletes the response queue, which calls free_irq() in qla25xx_free_rsp_que(), and then frees the queue and the qpair. free_irq() waits for running hardirq handlers but does not cancel work already placed on ha->wq. A still-pending q_work then runs qla_do_work() against the freed qpair and response queue, causing a use-after-free. This is especially likely during full adapter teardown, where destroy_workqueue(ha->wq) forces pending work to run after the queue pairs have been freed. Flush the work item with cancel_work_sync() in qla25xx_free_rsp_que() after free_irq() has released the interrupt (so no new work can be queued) and before the response queue and qpair memory are freed (so the flushed handler still sees valid memory). Guard on rsp->qpair and ha->wq to match the INIT_WORK() condition and avoid operating on an uninitialized work_struct.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
N/A (UNKNOWN)
low
References
To clipboard 

Loading 1.0 MB of JSON…



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.