In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cgroup: Avoid iteration of dying tasks with zero refcount
The commit 260fbcb92bbea ("cgroup: Move dying_tasks cleanup from
cgroup_task_release() to cgroup_task_free()") extended the lifetime of
tasks on the dying_tasks list.
The iterators have provision to go through dying_tasks because of
dying threadgroup leaders or explicit CSS_TASK_ITER_WITH_DEAD, however,
it was expected that such tasks can obtain a new reference (that is
possible before cgroup_task_release()/put_task_struct_rcu_user()).
The tasks after cgroup_task_release() and before cgroup_task_free()
are subject to race when they may or may not have ->usage count > 0.
The race window is between css_task_iter_next() invocations
when css_set_lock is released and we may arrive at a new ->task_pos.
The iterator should not attempt to resurrect tasks whose ->usage count
dropped to zero. (When that happens, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb() is
already imminent and the returned task_struct would could be used
after free.)
As for the fix, we cannot simply check the signal->live count of a task
on the dying list because that won't distinguish regular zombies waiting
to be reaped from RCU remnant tasks that are going to be free'd.
Therefore add an extra check to rule out ->usage==0 tasks from any
iteration.
The repeat: loop in css_task_iter_advance() doesn't consider ->usage
count, so add a new loop to css_task_iter_next() to skip de-used tasks
on the dying_list.
Rough illustration of the possible race
R (reader of cgroup.procs) T (thread) L (group leader)
--------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
L exits, signal->live > 0
cgroup_task_dead(L)
css_set_skip_task_iters() // skips only cset->tasks
list_add_tail(&L->cg_list, &cset->dying_tasks)
css_task_iter_next()
take css_set_lock
css_task_iter_advance()
leader && signal->live != 0
=> it->task_pos = &L->cg_list
release css_set_lock
T exits
--signal->live == 0
cgroup_task_dead(T) // css_set_lock
release_task(T)
cgroup_task_release(T)
release_task(L) // zap_leader
cgroup_task_release(L)
put_task_struct_rcu_user(L)
...RCU...
put_task_struct(L)
L->usage = 0
/* L still on dying_tasks */
...RCU...
__put_task_struct(L)
css_task_iter_next() // another iteration
take css_set_lock
it->task_pos = &L->cg_list
get_task_struct(L)
=> addition on 0
drop css_set_lock
cgroup_task_free(L)
css_set_skip_task_iters() // dying skip comes too late
free_task(L)
cgroup_procs_show()
task_pid_vnr(L)
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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