Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2026-43323: Linux kernel · sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix

Affects Linux kernelSource CVE Database V5

0
Compare

Not known to be exploited · fixed in fb61ffb3fb30a161eb5404c27fc7635e275beafd : update Linux kernel when convenient.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 15:49 UTC

Severity
Unrated

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

Thin evidence

One scorer or none
CISA SSVC
Exploitation
No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable
Attackers cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact
Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-11-06.

Patch
Available – fixed in fb61ffb3fb30a161eb5404c27fc7635e275beafd, c089147074ed96ff4330739a0559394c19a3dfc8, 87573883c30f1a8555ff720836bb6ea231058539 +4

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 8 May 2026

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponized: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq 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 6 Nov 2026.

What to do

Upgrade Linux to fb61ffb3fb30a161eb5404c27fc7635e275beafd, c089147074ed96ff4330739a0559394c19a3dfc8, 87573883c30f1a8555ff720836bb6ea231058539 or 1319ea57529e131822bab56bf417c8edc2db9ae8; Linux to 6.19.12, 6.18.22 or 6.12.81.

Affected software

ProductAffectedFixed in
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • ≥ 978d4fe59665c13db692ba96839f9c52d69f13f3, < fb61ffb3fb30a161eb5404c27fc7635e275beafd
Fixed in
  • fb61ffb3fb30a161eb5404c27fc7635e275beafd
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • ≥ d2fc2dcfce47a56ffd414783003cc966c742c8a9, < c089147074ed96ff4330739a0559394c19a3dfc8
Fixed in
  • c089147074ed96ff4330739a0559394c19a3dfc8
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • ≥ 99673934a89febe664e704550216638dcb2336a8, < 87573883c30f1a8555ff720836bb6ea231058539
Fixed in
  • 87573883c30f1a8555ff720836bb6ea231058539
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • ≥ b3d99f43c72b56cf7a104a364e7fb34b0702828b, < 1319ea57529e131822bab56bf417c8edc2db9ae8
Fixed in
  • 1319ea57529e131822bab56bf417c8edc2db9ae8
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • >=6.19.7 <6.19.12
Fixed in
  • 6.19.12
LinuxLinuxAffected
  • >=6.18.17 <6.18.22
Fixed in
  • 6.18.22

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().

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…