Vulnerability Database

356,349

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-45919 — linux / linux_kernel

Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')

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

sched/rt: Skip currently executing CPU in rto_next_cpu()

CPU0 becomes overloaded when hosting a CPU-bound RT task, a non-CPU-bound RT task, and a CFS task stuck in kernel space. When other CPUs switch from RT to non-RT tasks, RT load balancing (LB) is triggered; with HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI enabled, they send IPIs to CPU0 to drive the execution of rto_push_irq_work_func. During push_rt_task on CPU0, if next_task->prio < rq->donor->prio, resched_curr() sets NEED_RESCHED and after the push operation completes, CPU0 calls rto_next_cpu(). Since only CPU0 is overloaded in this scenario, rto_next_cpu() should ideally return -1 (no further IPI needed).

However, multiple CPUs invoking tell_cpu_to_push() during LB increments rd->rto_loop_next. Even when rd->rto_cpu is set to -1, the mismatch between rd->rto_loop and rd->rto_loop_next forces rto_next_cpu() to restart its search from -1. With CPU0 remaining overloaded (satisfying rt_nr_migratory && rt_nr_total > 1), it gets reselected, causing CPU0 to queue irq_work to itself and send self-IPIs repeatedly. As long as CPU0 stays overloaded and other CPUs run pull_rt_tasks(), it falls into an infinite self-IPI loop, which triggers a CPU hardlockup due to continuous self-interrupts.

The trigging scenario is as follows:

cpu0 cpu1 cpu2 pull_rt_task tell_cpu_to_push &lt;------------irq_work_queue_on

rto_push_irq_work_func push_rt_task resched_curr(rq) pull_rt_task rto_next_cpu tell_cpu_to_push <-------------------------- atomic_inc(rto_loop_next) rd->rto_loop != next rto_next_cpu irq_work_queue_on rto_push_irq_work_func

Fix redundant self-IPI by filtering the initiating CPU in rto_next_cpu(). This solution has been verified to effectively eliminate spurious self-IPIs and prevent CPU hardlockup scenarios.

  • Published: May 27, 2026
  • Updated: Jun 27, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2026-45919
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.5
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.