VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jul 2025Updated 30 Oct 2026

CVE-2025-38234: Linux kernel · sched/rt: Fix race in push_rt_task

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-38234· High 7.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High · fixed in debfbc047196df1f6bfd52f2d028c21dce67f0de : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 16:33 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (Linux)	CVSS 3.1	7.8

Patch: Available – fixed in debfbc047196df1f6bfd52f2d028c21dce67f0de, 690e47d1403e90b7f2366f03b52ed3304194c793, 35b55cd665fbfd72805318f7017626eefd13dca5 +2

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Jul 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-wpg2-262c-j98f

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ e8fa136262e1121288bb93befe2295928ffd240d, < debfbc047196df1f6bfd52f2d028c21dce67f0de	Fixed in debfbc047196df1f6bfd52f2d028c21dce67f0de
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ e8fa136262e1121288bb93befe2295928ffd240d, < 690e47d1403e90b7f2366f03b52ed3304194c793	Fixed in 690e47d1403e90b7f2366f03b52ed3304194c793
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ e8fa136262e1121288bb93befe2295928ffd240d, < 35b55cd665fbfd72805318f7017626eefd13dca5	Fixed in 35b55cd665fbfd72805318f7017626eefd13dca5
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ e8fa136262e1121288bb93befe2295928ffd240d, < 9f6022b2573ae068793810db719e131df3ded405	Fixed in 9f6022b2573ae068793810db719e131df3ded405
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ e8fa136262e1121288bb93befe2295928ffd240d, < 07ecabfbca64f4f0b6071cf96e49d162fa9d138d	Fixed in 07ecabfbca64f4f0b6071cf96e49d162fa9d138d
LinuxLinux	Affected =2.6.25	Fixed in–

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/rt: Fix race in push_rt_task Overview ======== When a CPU chooses to call push_rt_task and picks a task to push to another CPU's runqueue then it will call find_lock_lowest_rq method which would take a double lock on both CPUs' runqueues. If one of the locks aren't readily available, it may lead to dropping the current runqueue lock and reacquiring both the locks at once. During this window it is possible that the task is already migrated and is running on some other CPU. These cases are already handled. However, if the task is migrated and has already been executed and another CPU is now trying to wake it up (ttwu) such that it is queued again on the runqeue (on_rq is 1) and also if the task was run by the same CPU, then the current checks will pass even though the task was migrated out and is no longer in the pushable tasks list. Crashes ======= This bug resulted in quite a few flavors of crashes triggering kernel panics with various crash signatures such as assert failures, page faults, null pointer dereferences, and queue corruption errors all coming from scheduler itself. Some of the crashes: -> kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1616! BUG_ON(idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO) Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? die+0x2a/0x50 ? do_trap+0x85/0x100 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? do_error_trap+0x64/0xa0 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x4c/0x60 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x12/0x20 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 __schedule+0x5cb/0x790 ? update_ts_time_stats+0x55/0x70 schedule_idle+0x1e/0x40 do_idle+0x15e/0x200 cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 start_secondary+0x117/0x160 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb -> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 00000000000000c0 Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? no_context+0x183/0x350 ? __warn+0x8a/0xe0 ? exc_page_fault+0x3d6/0x520 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 ? pick_next_task_rt+0xb5/0x1d0 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x8c/0x1d0 __schedule+0x583/0x7e0 ? update_ts_time_stats+0x55/0x70 schedule_idle+0x1e/0x40 do_idle+0x15e/0x200 cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 start_secondary+0x117/0x160 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb -> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff9464daea5900 kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1861! BUG_ON(rq->cpu != task_cpu(p)) -> kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1055! BUG_ON(!rq->nr_running) Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? die+0x2a/0x50 ? do_trap+0x85/0x100 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? do_error_trap+0x64/0xa0 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x4c/0x60 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x12/0x20 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 dequeue_rt_entity+0x1f/0x70 dequeue_task_rt+0x2d/0x70 __schedule+0x1a8/0x7e0 ? blk_finish_plug+0x25/0x40 schedule+0x3c/0xb0 futex_wait_queue_me+0xb6/0x120 futex_wait+0xd9/0x240 do_futex+0x344/0xa90 ? get_mm_exe_file+0x30/0x60 ? audit_exe_compare+0x58/0x70 ? audit_filter_rules.constprop.26+0x65e/0x1220 __x64_sys_futex+0x148/0x1f0 do_syscall_64+0x30/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x62/0xc7 -> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff8cf3608bc2c0 Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? no_context+0x183/0x350 ? spurious_kernel_fault+0x171/0x1c0 ? exc_page_fault+0x3b6/0x520 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 ? _cond_resched+0x15/0x30 ? futex_wait_queue_me+0xc8/0x120 ? futex_wait+0xd9/0x240 ? try_to_wake_up+0x1b8/0x490 ? futex_wake+0x78/0x160 ? do_futex+0xcd/0xa90 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? plist_del+0x6a/0xd0 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? dequeue_pushable_task+0x20/0x70 ? __schedule+0x382/0x7e0 ? asm_sysvec_reschedule_i ---truncated---

CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (Race Condition) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-362

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats