In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/deadline: Fix missing ENQUEUE_REPLENISH during PI de-boosting
Running stress-ng --schedpolicy 0 on an RT kernel on a big machine
might lead to the following WARNINGs (edited).
sched: DL de-boosted task PID 22725: REPLENISH flag missing
WARNING: CPU: 93 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:239 dequeue_task_dl+0x15c/0x1f8
... (running_bw underflow)
Call trace:
dequeue_task_dl+0x15c/0x1f8 (P)
dequeue_task+0x80/0x168
deactivate_task+0x24/0x50
push_dl_task+0x264/0x2e0
dl_task_timer+0x1b0/0x228
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x188/0x378
hrtimer_interrupt+0xfc/0x260
...
The problem is that when a SCHED_DEADLINE task (lock holder) is
changed to a lower priority class via sched_setscheduler(), it may
fail to properly inherit the parameters of potential DEADLINE donors
if it didn't already inherit them in the past (shorter deadline than
donor's at that time). This might lead to bandwidth accounting
corruption, as enqueue_task_dl() won't recognize the lock holder as
boosted.
The scenario occurs when:
- A DEADLINE task (donor) blocks on a PI mutex held by another
DEADLINE task (holder), but the holder doesn't inherit parameters
(e.g., it already has a shorter deadline)
- sched_setscheduler() changes the holder from DEADLINE to a lower
class while still holding the mutex
- The holder should now inherit DEADLINE parameters from the donor
and be enqueued with ENQUEUE_REPLENISH, but this doesn't happen
Fix the issue by introducing __setscheduler_dl_pi(), which detects when
a DEADLINE (proper or boosted) task gets setscheduled to a lower
priority class. In case, the function makes the task inherit DEADLINE
parameters of the donoer (pi_se) and sets ENQUEUE_REPLENISH flag to
ensure proper bandwidth accounting during the next enqueue operation.
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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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