In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched_ext: Fix CPU hotplug hang when a dying CPU's tasks sit in the BPF scheduler
A CPU going down has to empty its own rq. Its hotplug thread waits in
sched_cpu_wait_empty() until nothing else is left, and the only thing that
wakes it is balance_push(), which runs from __schedule() on the dying CPU
and pushes off the migratable tasks the CPU picks.
sched_ext breaks this. A task sitting on a user DSQ or held by the BPF
scheduler is still counted on its rq, but an inactive CPU no longer calls
ops.dispatch() and can't pull the task back. The dying CPU goes idle with
the task still counted, and one of two things happens:
- Another CPU consumes the task. The rq empties without a __schedule() on
the dying CPU, so the hotplug thread is never woken and cpu_down() hangs
holding cpu_hotplug_lock.
- The task is affine only to the dying CPU. Nothing can move it, and the
offline stalls until the watchdog ejects the BPF scheduler.
When the rq goes offline, re-enqueue every task on it that isn't already on
the local DSQ. An enqueue on an offline rq lands on the local DSQ, so the
dying CPU itself picks the tasks and balance_push() pushes them off, the
same as for the other sched classes. From then on no sched_ext path on
another CPU can pull a task off the rq.
ops.dispatch() currently stops as soon as the CPU goes inactive, and CPU
hotplug then waits for an RCU grace period before taking the rq offline. A
BPF-held task affine only to the dying CPU and preempted inside an RCU
read-side critical section would block that grace period, and the rq would
never go offline. Test SCX_RQ_ONLINE directly so that ops.dispatch() keeps
running until the rq goes offline. Only the dying CPU's own hotplug thread
clears the flag during teardown, and task_can_run_on_remote_rq() still keeps
other rqs' tasks off the CPU.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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