In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/fair: Fix fault in reweight_entity
Syzbot found a GPF in reweight_entity. This has been bisected to
commit 4ef0c5c6b5ba ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid
sched_task_group")
There is a race between sched_post_fork() and setpriority(PRIO_PGRP)
within a thread group that causes a null-ptr-deref in
reweight_entity() in CFS. The scenario is that the main process spawns
number of new threads, which then call setpriority(PRIO_PGRP, 0, -20),
wait, and exit. For each of the new threads the copy_process() gets
invoked, which adds the new task_struct and calls sched_post_fork()
for it.
In the above scenario there is a possibility that
setpriority(PRIO_PGRP) and set_one_prio() will be called for a thread
in the group that is just being created by copy_process(), and for
which the sched_post_fork() has not been executed yet. This will
trigger a null pointer dereference in reweight_entity(), as it will
try to access the run queue pointer, which hasn't been set.
Before the mentioned change the cfs_rq pointer for the task has been
set in sched_fork(), which is called much earlier in copy_process(),
before the new task is added to the thread_group. Now it is done in
the sched_post_fork(), which is called after that. To fix the issue
the remove the update_load param from the update_load param() function
and call reweight_task() only if the task flag doesn't have the
TASK_NEW flag set.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 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