In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Tell memcg to use allow_spinning=false path in bpf_timer_init()
Currently, calling bpf_map_kmalloc_node() from __bpf_async_init() can
cause various locking issues; see the following stack trace (edited for
style) as one example:
...
[10.011566] do_raw_spin_lock.cold
[10.011570] try_to_wake_up (5) double-acquiring the same
[10.011575] kick_pool rq_lock, causing a hardlockup
[10.011579] __queue_work
[10.011582] queue_work_on
[10.011585] kernfs_notify
[10.011589] cgroup_file_notify
[10.011593] try_charge_memcg (4) memcg accounting raises an
[10.011597] obj_cgroup_charge_pages MEMCG_MAX event
[10.011599] obj_cgroup_charge_account
[10.011600] __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook
[10.011603] __kmalloc_node_noprof
...
[10.011611] bpf_map_kmalloc_node
[10.011612] __bpf_async_init
[10.011615] bpf_timer_init (3) BPF calls bpf_timer_init()
[10.011617] bpf_prog_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_fcg_runnable
[10.011619] bpf__sched_ext_ops_runnable
[10.011620] enqueue_task_scx (2) BPF runs with rq_lock held
[10.011622] enqueue_task
[10.011626] ttwu_do_activate
[10.011629] sched_ttwu_pending (1) grabs rq_lock
...
The above was reproduced on bpf-next (b338cf849ec8) by modifying
./tools/sched_ext/scx_flatcg.bpf.c to call bpf_timer_init() during
ops.runnable(), and hacking the memcg accounting code a bit to make
a bpf_timer_init() call more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event.
We have also run into other similar variants (both internally and on
bpf-next), including double-acquiring cgroup_file_kn_lock, the same
worker_pool::lock, etc.
As suggested by Shakeel, fix this by using __GFP_HIGH instead of
GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init(), so that e.g. if try_charge_memcg()
raises an MEMCG_MAX event, we call __memcg_memory_event() with
@allow_spinning=false and avoid calling cgroup_file_notify() there.
Depends on mm patch
"memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed":
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v0 approach s/bpf_map_kmalloc_node/bpf_mem_alloc/
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v1 approach:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
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 2026-10-29). 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