Patchlage

CVE-2026-89927

CVE CVE-2026-89927EUVD EUVD-2026-80527Published 2026-09-16T10:32:19.000ZLast changed 2026-09-16T14:40:17.000ZCVSS 7.1

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: x86: hyper-v: Clamp stimer deadline to avoid livelock Fix an issue where userspace or the guest can program an Hyper-V synthetic timer to have a deadline in the past via integer overflow, preventing the CPU from making progress and triggering an RCU stall. Hyper-V's SynIC exposes 4 per-vCPU synthetic timers to the guest, which are emulated by KVM. Each is programmed through the HV_X64_MSR_STIMERi_CONFIG and HV_X64_MSR_STIMERi_COUNT MSRs. Depending on CONFIG, COUNT represents either the absolute expiration time or the period of a periodic timer, both expressed in 100ns ticks. These timers may be set both by the guest (WRMSR) and the host (KVM_SET_MSRS). When the timer is enabled, stimer_start() translates COUNT to an absolute monotonic deadline and arms an hrtimer. If COUNT is set to a value close to U64_MAX, the deadline calculation can overflow. ktime_add_ns(ktime_now, 100 * (stimer->exp_time - time_now)) This can result in a CPU livelock. stimer_start() arms the timer via hrtimer_start() with a deadline in the past, which causes it to immediately fire. The stimer callback then raises KVM_RQ_HV_STIMER, with the intention of causing KVM to deliver a synthetic interrupt on the next vCPU guest enter. Then, once userspace issues KVM_RUN, vcpu_enter_guest() consumes the request, calling kvm_hv_process_stimers(). This would normally disable the timer via stimer_expiration() once the deadline is in the past. However, the deadline comparison is done between the KVM reference counter and stime->exp_time, which is a big value close to U64_MAX, so this never happens for a few thousand years. kvm_hv_process_timers() then re-arms the timer via stimer_start(), since it was not disabled, which again fires immediately. Before entering the guest, kvm_vcpu_exit_request() checks kvm_request_pending(), which returns true due to the newly raised KVM_REQ_HV_STIMER. Then vcpu_enter_guest() aborts the guest entry, returning early into vcpu_run(), which loops back again into vcpu_enter_guest(), restarting the cycle. Since there are no manual yields in this loop, a task with SCHED_FIFO may starve RCU grace-period kthreads, which exposes the stalls found by syzcaller: rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: rcu: (detected by 1, t=10502 jiffies, g=14269, q=1142 ncpus=2) rcu: All QSes seen, last rcu_preempt kthread activity 10500 (4294965239-4294954739), jiffies_till_next_fqs=1, root ->qsmask 0x0 rcu: rcu_preempt kthread starved for 10500 jiffies! g14269 f0x2 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(5) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=0 rcu: Unless rcu_preempt kthread gets sufficient CPU time, OOM is now expected behavior. ( ... ) Call Trace: <IRQ> __run_hrtimer kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1773 [inline] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x408/0xc30 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1841 hrtimer_interrupt+0x45b/0xaa0 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1903 local_apic_timer_interrupt arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1045 [inline] __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x102/0x3e0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1062 instr_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1056 [inline] sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa1/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1056 </IRQ> <TASK> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1a/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:697 RIP: 0010:__raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:152 [inline] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xa8/0x110 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:194 Code: 74 05 e8 0b f4 5f f6 48 c7 44 24 20 00 00 00 00 9c 8f 44 24 20 f6 44 24 21 02 75 4f f7 c3 00 02 00 00 74 01 fb bf 01 00 00 00 <e8> 23 6b 27 f6 65 8b 05 7c 60 5a 07 85 c0 74 40 48 c7 04 24 0e 36 RSP: 0018:ffffc900040a7320 EFLAGS: 00000206 RAX: 5de15cb931505900 RBX: 0000000000000a06 RCX: 5de15cb931505900 RDX: 0000000000000007 RSI: ffffffff8daa9dc3 RDI: 0000000000000001 RBP: ffffc900040a73b0 R08: ffffffff8fc3d0 ---truncated---

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.