In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
futex: Prevent lockup in requeue-PI during signal/ timeout wakeup
During wait-requeue-pi (task A) and requeue-PI (task B) the following
race can happen:
Task A Task B
futex_wait_requeue_pi()
futex_setup_timer()
futex_do_wait()
futex_requeue()
CLASS(hb, hb1)(&key1);
CLASS(hb, hb2)(&key2);
*timeout*
futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync()
requeue_state = Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE
*blocks on hb->lock*
futex_proxy_trylock_atomic()
futex_requeue_pi_prepare()
Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE => -EAGAIN
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2)
*retry*
Task B acquires both hb locks and attempts to acquire the PI-lock of the
top most waiter (task B). Task A is leaving early due to a signal/
timeout and started removing itself from the queue. It updates its
requeue_state but can not remove it from the list because this requires
the hb lock which is owned by task B.
Usually task A is able to swoop the lock after task B unlocked it.
However if task B is of higher priority then task A may not be able to
wake up in time and acquire the lock before task B gets it again.
Especially on a UP system where A is never scheduled.
As a result task A blocks on the lock and task B busy loops, trying to
make progress but live locks the system instead. Tragic.
This can be fixed by removing the top most waiter from the list in this
case. This allows task B to grab the next top waiter (if any) in the
next iteration and make progress.
Remove the top most waiter if futex_requeue_pi_prepare() fails.
Let the waiter conditionally remove itself from the list in
handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup().
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-06). 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