Evidence-led vulnerability intelligence · 2026-06-24 22:47 IST

CVE-2026-52977

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: futex: Prevent lockup in requeue-PI during signal/ timeout wakeup During wait-requeue-pi (task A) and requeue-PI (task B) the following race can happen: Task A Task B futex_wait_requeue_pi() futex_setup_timer() futex_do_wait() futex_requeue() CLASS(hb, hb1)(&key1); CLASS(hb, hb2)(&key2); *timeout* futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync() requeue_state = Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE *blocks on hb->lock* futex_proxy_trylock_atomic() futex_requeue_pi_prepare() Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE => -EAGAIN double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2) *retry* Task B acquires both hb locks and attempts to acquire the PI-lock of the top most waiter (task B). Task A is leaving early due to a signal/ timeout and started removing itself from the queue. It updates its requeue_state but can not remove it from the list because this requires the hb lock which is owned by task B. Usually task A is able to swoop the lock after task B unlocked it. However if task B is of higher priority then task A may not be able to wake up in time and acquire the lock before task B gets it again. Especially on a UP system where A is never scheduled. As a result task A blocks on the lock and task B busy loops, trying to make progress but live locks the system instead. Tragic. This can be fixed by removing the top most waiter from the list in this case. This allows task B to grab the next top waiter (if any) in the next iteration and make progress. Remove the top most waiter if futex_requeue_pi_prepare() fails. Let the waiter conditionally remove itself from the list in handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup().

MEDIUM · 5.5Linux

Executive briefing

The source record describes: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: futex: Prevent lockup in requeue-PI during signal/ timeout wakeup During wait-requeue-pi (task A) and requeue-PI (task B) the following race can happen: Task A Task B futex_wait_requeue_pi() futex_setup_timer() futex_do_wait() futex_requeue() CLASS(hb, hb1)(&key1); CLASS(hb, hb2)(&key2); *timeout* futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync() requeue_state = Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE *blocks on hb->lock* futex_proxy_trylock_atomic() futex_requeue_pi_prepare() Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE => -EAGAIN double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2) *retry* Task B acquires both hb locks and attempts to acquire the PI-lock of the top most waiter (task B). Task A is leaving early due to a signal/ timeout and started removing itself from the queue. It updates its requeue_state but can not remove it from the list because this requires the hb lock which is owned by task B. Usually task A is able to swoop the lock after task B unlocked it. However if task B is of higher priority then task A may not be able to wake up in time and acquire the lock before task B gets it again. Especially on a UP system where A is never scheduled. As a result task A blocks on the lock and task B busy loops, trying to make progress but live locks the system instead. Tragic. This can be fixed by removing the top most waiter from the list in this case. This allows task B to grab the next top waiter (if any) in the next iteration and make progress. Remove the top most waiter if futex_requeue_pi_prepare() fails. Let the waiter conditionally remove itself from the list in handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup(). The practical risk depends on whether an affected product/version is present, reachable and configured in an exploitable way. Review the affected-product evidence and linked vendor advisories before assigning exposure status.

Assessment: Potential exposure only — validate the installed product, exact version, configuration and vendor applicability before treating an asset as confirmed vulnerable.

Evidence confidence: Moderate Evidence-derived, not an exploitability verdict

Severity & attack characteristics

5.5 / 10 · 3.1

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

Attack vectorL
Attack complexityL
Privileges requiredL
User interactionN
ScopeU
Confidentiality impactN
Integrity impactN
Availability impactH

Technical explanation & impact

The technical mechanism is not expanded beyond the source description unless a referenced advisory supplies additional evidence. Read the linked vendor/CERT advisories for root-cause detail.

Potential impact must be interpreted from the published CVSS impact metrics and the affected component. A CVSS impact score is not proof that a particular asset is exploitable.

Weakness classification

NVD-CWE-noinfo

Affected products and versions

Products below are parsed from NVD vulnerable CPE configuration entries. Version boundaries are shown as published; verify applicability with the vendor.

VendorProductVersion evidence
linuxlinux_kernelfrom (inclusive) 6.19; before 7.0.10 · CPE version 7.1

Remediation & validation

  1. Identify exposure by comparing the affected product and version ranges with your asset inventory, SBOM and externally exposed services.
  2. Review the linked vendor security advisory or patch notes. Upgrade to a vendor-confirmed fixed release; do not infer a fixed version from the CVE description.
  3. Until patched, consider restricting network access or disabling the affected feature where operationally safe. These are temporary controls, not a substitute for a vendor fix.
  4. Validate the remediation with a version check and vulnerability rescan, then retain change evidence.

No fixed version is displayed unless it is explicitly established by a vendor advisory. Follow the vendor's release notes for exact product and branch applicability.

Vendor advisories, patches & exploit references

Open NVD record ← Back to CVE Watch

Threat intelligence, made actionable · CVE data sourced from the NVD