In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/eevdf: Fix se->slice being set to U64_MAX and resulting crash
There is a code path in dequeue_entities() that can set the slice of a
sched_entity to U64_MAX, which sometimes results in a crash.
The offending case is when dequeue_entities() is called to dequeue a
delayed group entity, and then the entity's parent's dequeue is delayed.
In that case:
- In the if (entity_is_task(se)) else block at the beginning of
dequeue_entities(), slice is set to
cfs_rq_min_slice(group_cfs_rq(se)). If the entity was delayed, then
it has no queued tasks, so cfs_rq_min_slice() returns U64_MAX.
- The first for_each_sched_entity() loop dequeues the entity.
- If the entity was its parent's only child, then the next iteration
tries to dequeue the parent.
- If the parent's dequeue needs to be delayed, then it breaks from the
first for_each_sched_entity() loop _without updating slice_.
- The second for_each_sched_entity() loop sets the parent's ->slice to
the saved slice, which is still U64_MAX.
This throws off subsequent calculations with potentially catastrophic
results. A manifestation we saw in production was:
- In update_entity_lag(), se->slice is used to calculate limit, which
ends up as a huge negative number.
- limit is used in se->vlag = clamp(vlag, -limit, limit). Because limit
is negative, vlag > limit, so se->vlag is set to the same huge
negative number.
- In place_entity(), se->vlag is scaled, which overflows and results in
another huge (positive or negative) number.
- The adjusted lag is subtracted from se->vruntime, which increases or
decreases se->vruntime by a huge number.
- pick_eevdf() calls entity_eligible()/vruntime_eligible(), which
incorrectly returns false because the vruntime is so far from the
other vruntimes on the queue, causing the
(vruntime - cfs_rq->min_vruntime) * load calulation to overflow.
- Nothing appears to be eligible, so pick_eevdf() returns NULL.
- pick_next_entity() tries to dereference the return value of
pick_eevdf() and crashes.
Dumping the cfs_rq states from the core dumps with drgn showed tell-tale
huge vruntime ranges and bogus vlag values, and I also traced se->slice
being set to U64_MAX on live systems (which was usually "benign" since
the rest of the runqueue needed to be in a particular state to crash).
Fix it in dequeue_entities() by always setting slice from the first
non-empty cfs_rq.
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 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