Security assessments indicate that CVE-2026-64250 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕔 17 Aug 2026, 05:17 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 24 Jul 2026, 16:16 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 23 days
CVSS Release: version 3
nvd@nist.gov
Primary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVE-2026-64250: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Report dying CPU to RCU in stop_this_cpu() This is a port of MIPS commit 9f3f3bdc6d9dac1 ("MIPS: smp: report dying CPU to RCU in stop_this_cpu()"). smp_send_stop() parks all secondary CPUs in stop_this_cpu(). And the function marks the CPU offline for the scheduler via set_cpu_online(false) but never informs RCU, so RCU keeps expecting a quiescent state from CPUs that are now spinning forever with interrupts disabled. As long as nothing waits for an RCU grace period after smp_send_stop() this is harmless, which is why it went unnoticed. However, since commit 91840be8f710370 ("irq_work: Fix use-after-free in irq_work_single() on PREEMPT_RT"), irq_work_sync() calls synchronize_rcu() on architectures without an irq_work self-IPI, i.e. where arch_irq_work_has_interrupt() returns false. Any irq_work_sync() issued in the reboot/shutdown/halt path after smp_send_stop() then blocks on a grace period that can never complete, hanging the reboot: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 15 at kernel/irq_work.c:144 irq_work_queue_on ... rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: rcu: Offline CPU 1 blocking current GP. rcu: Offline CPU 2 blocking current GP. rcu: Offline CPU 3 blocking current GP. This issue needs some hacks to reproduce, and it was not noticed on LoongArch because arch_irq_work_has_interrupt() usually returns true. Call rcutree_report_cpu_dead() once interrupts are disabled, mirroring the generic CPU-hotplug offline path, so RCU stops waiting on the parked CPUs and grace periods can still complete. LoongArch shuts down all CPUs here without going through the CPU-hotplug mechanism, so this report is not otherwise issued.
The exploitability of CVE-2026-64250 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
CVE-2026-64250 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-64250, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-64250, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
NVD-CWE-noinfo
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.