In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/fair: Clear rel_deadline when initializing forked entities
A yield-triggered crash can happen when a newly forked sched_entity
enters the fair class with se->rel_deadline unexpectedly set.
The failing sequence is:
- A task is forked while se->rel_deadline is still set.
- __sched_fork() initializes vruntime, vlag and other sched_entity
state, but does not clear rel_deadline.
- On the first enqueue, enqueue_entity() calls place_entity().
- Because se->rel_deadline is set, place_entity() treats se->deadline
as a relative deadline and converts it to an absolute deadline by
adding the current vruntime.
- However, the forked entity's deadline is not a valid inherited
relative deadline for this new scheduling instance, so the conversion
produces an abnormally large deadline.
- If the task later calls sched_yield(), yield_task_fair() advances
se->vruntime to se->deadline.
- The inflated vruntime is then used by the following enqueue path,
where the vruntime-derived key can overflow when multiplied by the
entity weight.
- This corrupts cfs_rq->sum_w_vruntime, breaks EEVDF eligibility
calculation, and can eventually make all entities appear ineligible.
pick_next_entity() may then return NULL unexpectedly, leading to a
later NULL dereference.
A captured trace shows the effect clearly. Before yield, the entity's
vruntime was around:
9834017729983308
After yield_task_fair() executed:
se->vruntime = se->deadline
the vruntime jumped to:
19668035460670230
and the deadline was later advanced further to:
19668035463470230
This shows that the deadline had already become abnormally large before
yield_task_fair() copied it into vruntime.
rel_deadline is only meaningful when se->deadline really carries a
relative deadline that still needs to be placed against vruntime. A
freshly forked sched_entity should not inherit or retain this state.
Clear se->rel_deadline in __sched_fork(), together with the other
sched_entity runtime state, so that the first enqueue does not interpret
the new entity's deadline as a stale relative deadline.
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 2026-10-24). 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