In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/rt: Skip currently executing CPU in rto_next_cpu()
CPU0 becomes overloaded when hosting a CPU-bound RT task, a non-CPU-bound
RT task, and a CFS task stuck in kernel space. When other CPUs switch from
RT to non-RT tasks, RT load balancing (LB) is triggered; with
HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI enabled, they send IPIs to CPU0 to drive the execution
of rto_push_irq_work_func. During push_rt_task on CPU0,
if next_task->prio < rq->donor->prio, resched_curr() sets NEED_RESCHED
and after the push operation completes, CPU0 calls rto_next_cpu().
Since only CPU0 is overloaded in this scenario, rto_next_cpu() should
ideally return -1 (no further IPI needed).
However, multiple CPUs invoking tell_cpu_to_push() during LB increments
rd->rto_loop_next. Even when rd->rto_cpu is set to -1, the mismatch between
rd->rto_loop and rd->rto_loop_next forces rto_next_cpu() to restart its
search from -1. With CPU0 remaining overloaded (satisfying rt_nr_migratory
&& rt_nr_total > 1), it gets reselected, causing CPU0 to queue irq_work to
itself and send self-IPIs repeatedly. As long as CPU0 stays overloaded and
other CPUs run pull_rt_tasks(), it falls into an infinite self-IPI loop,
which triggers a CPU hardlockup due to continuous self-interrupts.
The trigging scenario is as follows:
cpu0 cpu1 cpu2
pull_rt_task
tell_cpu_to_push
<------------irq_work_queue_on
rto_push_irq_work_func
push_rt_task
resched_curr(rq) pull_rt_task
rto_next_cpu tell_cpu_to_push
<-------------------------- atomic_inc(rto_loop_next)
rd->rto_loop != next
rto_next_cpu
irq_work_queue_on
rto_push_irq_work_func
Fix redundant self-IPI by filtering the initiating CPU in rto_next_cpu().
This solution has been verified to effectively eliminate spurious self-IPIs
and prevent CPU hardlockup scenarios.
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
- 0.1% 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