In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/smp: do not decrement idle task preempt count in CPU offline
With PREEMPT_COUNT=y, when a CPU is offlined and then onlined again, we
get:
BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/1/0/0x00000000
no locks held by swapper/1/0.
CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #100
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108
__schedule_bug+0xac/0xe0
__schedule+0xcf8/0x10d0
schedule_idle+0x3c/0x70
do_idle+0x2d8/0x4a0
cpu_startup_entry+0x38/0x40
start_secondary+0x2ec/0x3a0
start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14
This is because powerpc's arch_cpu_idle_dead() decrements the idle task's
preempt count, for reasons explained in commit a7c2bb8279d2 ("powerpc:
Re-enable preemption before cpu_die()"), specifically "start_secondary()
expects a preempt_count() of 0."
However, since commit 2c669ef6979c ("powerpc/preempt: Don't touch the idle
task's preempt_count during hotplug") and commit f1a0a376ca0c ("sched/core:
Initialize the idle task with preemption disabled"), that justification no
longer holds.
The idle task isn't supposed to re-enable preemption, so remove the
vestigial preempt_enable() from the CPU offline path.
Tested with pseries and powernv in qemu, and pseries on PowerVM.
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 2026-10-25). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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