You are viewing this page in an unauthorized frame window.
This is a potential security issue, you are being redirected to
https://nvd.nist.gov
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix
John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and
managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix
zero_vruntime tracking").
The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to
hypothesize the following scenario:
Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be
eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in
between these two entities.
Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full
slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over
the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no
longer. So we schedule.
Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the
__{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the
fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime.
All that moves zero_vruntime are tick and full {de,en}queue.
This means, that if the two tasks playing leapfrog can reach the
critical speed to reach the overflow point inside one tick's worth of
time, we're up a creek.
Additionally, when multiple cgroups are involved, there is no guarantee
the tick will in fact hit every cgroup in a timely manner. Statistically
speaking it will, but that same statistics does not rule out the
possibility of one cgroup not getting a tick for a significant amount of
time -- however unlikely.
Therefore, just like with the yield() case, force an update at the end
of every slice. This ensures the update is never more than a single
slice behind and the whole thing is within 2 lag bounds as per the
comment on entity_key().
Metrics
NVD enrichment efforts reference publicly available information to associate
vector strings. CVSS information contributed by other sources is also
displayed.
By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST webspace.
We have provided these links to other web sites because they
may have information that would be of interest to you. No
inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being
referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web
sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with
the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not
endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on
these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected].
OR
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.12.78 up to (excluding) 6.12.81
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.18.17 up to (excluding) 6.18.22
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.19.7 up to (excluding) 6.19.12
New CVE Received from kernel.org5/08/2026 10:16:40 AM
Action
Type
Old Value
New Value
Added
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix
John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and
managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix
zero_vruntime tracking").
The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to
hypothesize the following scenario:
Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be
eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in
between these two entities.
Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full
slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over
the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no
longer. So we schedule.
Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the
__{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the
fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime.
All that moves zero_vruntime are tick and full {de,en}queue.
This means, that if the two tasks playing leapfrog can reach the
critical speed to reach the overflow point inside one tick's worth of
time, we're up a creek.
Additionally, when multiple cgroups are involved, there is no guarantee
the tick will in fact hit every cgroup in a timely manner. Statistically
speaking it will, but that same statistics does not rule out the
possibility of one cgroup not getting a tick for a significant amount of
time -- however unlikely.
Therefore, just like with the yield() case, force an update at the end
of every slice. This ensures the update is never more than a single
slice behind and the whole thing is within 2 lag bounds as per the
comment on entity_key().