In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cgroup: fix race between task migration and iteration
When a task is migrated out of a css_set, cgroup_migrate_add_task()
first moves it from cset->tasks to cset->mg_tasks via:
list_move_tail(&task->cg_list, &cset->mg_tasks);
If a css_task_iter currently has it->task_pos pointing to this task,
css_set_move_task() calls css_task_iter_skip() to keep the iterator
valid. However, since the task has already been moved to ->mg_tasks,
the iterator is advanced relative to the mg_tasks list instead of the
original tasks list. As a result, remaining tasks on cset->tasks, as
well as tasks queued on cset->mg_tasks, can be skipped by iteration.
Fix this by calling css_set_skip_task_iters() before unlinking
task->cg_list from cset->tasks. This advances all active iterators to
the next task on cset->tasks, so iteration continues correctly even
when a task is concurrently being migrated.
This race is hard to hit in practice without instrumentation, but it
can be reproduced by artificially slowing down cgroup_procs_show().
For example, on an Android device a temporary
/sys/kernel/cgroup/cgroup_test knob can be added to inject a delay
into cgroup_procs_show(), and then:
1) Spawn three long-running tasks (PIDs 101, 102, 103).
2) Create a test cgroup and move the tasks into it.
3) Enable a large delay via /sys/kernel/cgroup/cgroup_test.
4) In one shell, read cgroup.procs from the test cgroup.
5) Within the delay window, in another shell migrate PID 102 by
writing it to a different cgroup.procs file.
Under this setup, cgroup.procs can intermittently show only PID 101
while skipping PID 103. Once the migration completes, reading the
file again shows all tasks as expected.
Note that this change does not allow removing the existing
css_set_skip_task_iters() call in css_set_move_task(). The new call
in cgroup_migrate_add_task() only handles iterators that are racing
with migration while the task is still on cset->tasks. Iterators may
also start after the task has been moved to cset->mg_tasks. If we
dropped css_set_skip_task_iters() from css_set_move_task(), such
iterators could keep task_pos pointing to a migrating task, causing
css_task_iter_advance() to malfunction on the destination css_set,
up to and including crashes or infinite loops.
The race window between migration and iteration is very small, and
css_task_iter is not on a hot path. In the worst case, when an
iterator is positioned on the first thread of the migrating process,
cgroup_migrate_add_task() may have to skip multiple tasks via
css_set_skip_task_iters(). However, this only happens when migration
and iteration actually race, so the performance impact is negligible
compared to the correctness fix provided here.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- <0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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: 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.
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