In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
futex: Prevent rcuwait use-after-free during requeue PI
On PREEMPT_RT, FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI can trigger a KASAN report
(slab-out-of-bounds) in futex_requeue_pi_complete() invocation of
rcuwait_wake_up().
The futex_q used by futex_wait_requeue_pi() is allocated on the waiter's
stack. An early wakeup can race with a PI requeue as follows:
waiter requeue task
------ ------------
futex_wait_requeue_pi()
futex_do_wait()
schedule()
futex_requeue
futex_proxy_trylock_atomic()
futex_requeue_pi_prepare()
Q_REQUEUE_PI_NONE -> Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS
* timeout/ signal wakes waiter *
futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync()
Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS -> Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT
requeue_pi_wake_futex
futex_requeue_pi_complete()
cmpxchg Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT -> Q_REQUEUE_PI_LOCKED
rcuwait_wait_event()
if (atomic_read(&q->requeue_state) != Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT)
break /* no schedule() */
/* q.pi_state->owner == current */
futex_private_hash_put()
/* return from syscall */
rcuwait_wake_up(&q->requeue_wait)
/* q is gone */
futex_requeue_pi_complete() publishes Q_REQUEUE_PI_LOCKED before
calling rcuwait_wake_up(). The waiter observes this state in
rcuwait_wait_event() before invoking schedule() in rcuwait_wait_event().
Here, the waiter is free leave the syscall before requeue task can
complete the wake.
To address this race skip rcuwait_wake_up() in the Q_REQUEUE_PI_LOCKED
case.
This state is only published by requeue_pi_wake_futex(), which saves
q->task before futex_requeue_pi_complete() and wakes the waiter via
wake_up_state().
This wake is intended to wake the waiter from its futex_do_wait() sleep.
If the waiter is still sleeping there, it can not get into the
Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT state (and require this removed wake).
Should the waiter be woken up from futex_do_wait() by other means (as in
this example) and sleep in futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync() then the
wake_up_state() from requeue_pi_wake_futex() will wake it, too.
Should the waiter task terminate before wake_up_state() had a chance to
wake the task then the task pointer does not become invalid because the
futex_hash_bucket::lock is held and the task pointer is RCU protected.
[bigeasy: Updated comment and commit message]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-11-10). 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