In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/core: Prevent rescheduling when interrupts are disabled
David reported a warning observed while loop testing kexec jump:
Interrupts enabled after irqrouter_resume+0x0/0x50
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 560 at drivers/base/syscore.c:103 syscore_resume+0x18a/0x220
kernel_kexec+0xf6/0x180
__do_sys_reboot+0x206/0x250
do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180
The corresponding interrupt flag trace:
hardirqs last enabled at (15573): [] __up_console_sem+0x7e/0x90
hardirqs last disabled at (15580): [] __up_console_sem+0x63/0x90
That means __up_console_sem() was invoked with interrupts enabled. Further
instrumentation revealed that in the interrupt disabled section of kexec
jump one of the syscore_suspend() callbacks woke up a task, which set the
NEED_RESCHED flag. A later callback in the resume path invoked
cond_resched() which in turn led to the invocation of the scheduler:
__cond_resched+0x21/0x60
down_timeout+0x18/0x60
acpi_os_wait_semaphore+0x4c/0x80
acpi_ut_acquire_mutex+0x3d/0x100
acpi_ns_get_node+0x27/0x60
acpi_ns_evaluate+0x1cb/0x2d0
acpi_rs_set_srs_method_data+0x156/0x190
acpi_pci_link_set+0x11c/0x290
irqrouter_resume+0x54/0x60
syscore_resume+0x6a/0x200
kernel_kexec+0x145/0x1c0
__do_sys_reboot+0xeb/0x240
do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180
This is a long standing problem, which probably got more visible with
the recent printk changes. Something does a task wakeup and the
scheduler sets the NEED_RESCHED flag. cond_resched() sees it set and
invokes schedule() from a completely bogus context. The scheduler
enables interrupts after context switching, which causes the above
warning at the end.
Quite some of the code paths in syscore_suspend()/resume() can result in
triggering a wakeup with the exactly same consequences. They might not
have done so yet, but as they share a lot of code with normal operations
it's just a question of time.
The problem only affects the PREEMPT_NONE and PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY scheduling
models. Full preemption is not affected as cond_resched() is disabled and
the preemption check preemptible() takes the interrupt disabled flag into
account.
Cure the problem by adding a corresponding check into cond_resched().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it