In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/deadline: Fix missing...

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

sched/deadline: Fix missing ENQUEUE_REPLENISH during PI de-boosting

Running stress-ng --schedpolicy 0 on an RT kernel on a big machine
might lead to the following WARNINGs (edited).

sched: DL de-boosted task PID 22725: REPLENISH flag missing

WARNING: CPU: 93 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:239 dequeue_task_dl+0x15c/0x1f8
... (running_bw underflow)
Call trace:
dequeue_task_dl+0x15c/0x1f8 (P)
dequeue_task+0x80/0x168
deactivate_task+0x24/0x50
push_dl_task+0x264/0x2e0
dl_task_timer+0x1b0/0x228
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x188/0x378
hrtimer_interrupt+0xfc/0x260
...

The problem is that when a SCHED_DEADLINE task (lock holder) is
changed to a lower priority class via sched_setscheduler(), it may
fail to properly inherit the parameters of potential DEADLINE donors
if it didn't already inherit them in the past (shorter deadline than
donor's at that time). This might lead to bandwidth accounting
corruption, as enqueue_task_dl() won't recognize the lock holder as
boosted.

The scenario occurs when:
1. A DEADLINE task (donor) blocks on a PI mutex held by another
DEADLINE task (holder), but the holder doesn't inherit parameters
(e.g., it already has a shorter deadline)
2. sched_setscheduler() changes the holder from DEADLINE to a lower
class while still holding the mutex
3. The holder should now inherit DEADLINE parameters from the donor
and be enqueued with ENQUEUE_REPLENISH, but this doesn't happen

Fix the issue by introducing __setscheduler_dl_pi(), which detects when
a DEADLINE (proper or boosted) task gets setscheduled to a lower
priority class. In case, the function makes the task inherit DEADLINE
parameters of the donoer (pi_se) and sets ENQUEUE_REPLENISH flag to
ensure proper bandwidth accounting during the next enqueue operation.

Basic information

Type
unreviewed
Severity
medium
Advisory on GitHub
Open advisory ↗
Repository advisory
Source code
Not specified
Published (advisory)
2026-03-25 12:30:24 UTC
Updated
2026-06-01 18:31:22 UTC
NVD published
2026-03-25 11:16:36 UTC

EPSS Score

Score Percentile
0.02% 4.62%

CVSS Scores

Base score Version Severity Vector
5.5 3.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:L)
They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:L)
A normal user session is enough; they don’t have to be admin.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N)
Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.

Identifiers

References

cvelogic Threat Intelligence