CVE-2026-89566

jbd2: check need_resched() when skipping busy checkpoint buffers

N/A
Published: September 11, 2026 at 07:44 PM UTC
Updated: October 21, 2026 at 01:20 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jbd2: check need_resched() when skipping busy checkpoint buffers journal_shrink_one_cp_list() skips busy checkpoint buffers when called with JBD2_SHRINK_BUSY_SKIP. The continue statement on this path also skips the need_resched() check at the end of the loop body. Consequently, when a checkpoint list contains mostly busy buffers, the shrinker can walk the entire list while holding journal->j_list_lock, even when a reschedule has been requested. Large checkpoint lists under memory pressure can therefore cause long lock hold times and leave other CPUs spinning on j_list_lock, resulting in soft lockups or RCU stalls. Route the busy-buffer path through the need_resched() check so that the shrinker can release j_list_lock and reschedule promptly, restoring parity with the clean-buffer path, which already checks need_resched(). This does not change which checkpoint buffers are eligible for removal.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

5.15.129557fda9ed70ebf8eda2620ba3d746215285a13035fda50e262e65bd553ff777c4b280afd1495a18b6.1.506.4.136.59c31bb2684f8035beca0275349d19d679b679ffbb98dba273a0e47dbfade89c9af73c5b012a4eabb
Vendor states this is fixed in 595cac7f1b32d009b97f83dd2b2d6a1a445e9bb4 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f213e12ff5c9590b1034ae8da0e6d09665c772d0 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f83c23286e54180cdc83a36463a60003534cc290 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f9182a85991a0ad5cd2940df6db75f40ad90028c (fixed)
Affected range stops below 5.16, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.109 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.50 (unaffected)
Affected range stops below 6.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.5 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.160 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2.4 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3-rc1 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card