In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched_ext: Don't warn on NULL cgrp_moving_from in scx_cgroup_move_task()
A WARN fires when systemd's user manager writes "+cpu +memory +pids" to
its own subtree_control while a sched_ext scheduler is loaded:
WARNING: at kernel/sched/ext.c:3227 scx_cgroup_move_task+0xa8/0xb0
scx_cgroup_move_task+0xa8/0xb0
sched_move_task+0x134/0x290
cpu_cgroup_attach+0x39/0x70
cgroup_migrate_execute+0x37d/0x450
cgroup_update_dfl_csses+0x1e3/0x270
cgroup_subtree_control_write+0x3e7/0x440
scx_cgroup_can_attach() arms cgrp_moving_from only when a task's cpu
cgroup changes. It can still be NULL when scx_cgroup_move_task() runs,
through this sequence:
Step Result
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------
- cpu enabled on cgroup G cpu css = A
- cpu toggled off then on for G A killed, B created (same cgroup)
- an exiting task keeps A alive migration skips it, A now stale
- +memory migrates G stale A vs current B pulls cpu in
- cpu attach runs for all tasks hits a live, cpu-unchanged task
- scx_cgroup_move_task() on it cgrp_moving_from NULL -> WARN
The mismatch is that scx_cgroup_can_attach() keys on cgroup identity
while migration drives the move on css identity, so a NULL cgrp_moving_from
here is a legitimate css-only migration, not a missing prep.
The call is already gated on cgrp_moving_from, so just drop the warning.
ops.cgroup_prep_move() and ops.cgroup_move() stay paired.
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. 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