In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cgroup/cpuset: Prevent UAF in proc_cpuset_show()
An UAF can happen when /proc/cpuset is read as reported in [1].
This can be reproduced by the following methods:
1.add an mdelay(1000) before acquiring the cgroup_lock In the
cgroup_path_ns function.
2.$cat /proc//cpuset repeatly.
3.$mount -t cgroup -o cpuset cpuset /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/
$umount /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/ repeatly.
The race that cause this bug can be shown as below:
(umount) | (cat /proc//cpuset)
css_release | proc_cpuset_show
css_release_work_fn | css = task_get_css(tsk, cpuset_cgrp_id);
css_free_rwork_fn | cgroup_path_ns(css->cgroup, ...);
cgroup_destroy_root | mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
rebind_subsystems |
cgroup_free_root |
| // cgrp was freed, UAF
| cgroup_path_ns_locked(cgrp,..);
When the cpuset is initialized, the root node top_cpuset.css.cgrp
will point to &cgrp_dfl_root.cgrp. In cgroup v1, the mount operation will
allocate cgroup_root, and top_cpuset.css.cgrp will point to the allocated
&cgroup_root.cgrp. When the umount operation is executed,
top_cpuset.css.cgrp will be rebound to &cgrp_dfl_root.cgrp.
The problem is that when rebinding to cgrp_dfl_root, there are cases
where the cgroup_root allocated by setting up the root for cgroup v1
is cached. This could lead to a Use-After-Free (UAF) if it is
subsequently freed. The descendant cgroups of cgroup v1 can only be
freed after the css is released. However, the css of the root will never
be released, yet the cgroup_root should be freed when it is unmounted.
This means that obtaining a reference to the css of the root does
not guarantee that css.cgrp->root will not be freed.
Fix this problem by using rcu_read_lock in proc_cpuset_show().
As cgroup_root is kfree_rcu after commit d23b5c577715
("cgroup: Make operations on the cgroup root_list RCU safe"),
css->cgroup won't be freed during the critical section.
To call cgroup_path_ns_locked, css_set_lock is needed, so it is safe to
replace task_get_css with task_css.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9b1ff7be974a403aa4cd
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