CVE-2026-89436
What it is
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[] acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata() rejects SINF packages only when pcc->num_sifr is strictly less than hkey->package.count, then unconditionally writes a trailing sentinel at pcc->sinf[hkey->package.count]. But pcc->sinf[] is allocated with exactly pcc->num_sifr elements (valid indices 0..num_sifr-1), so that write needs num_sifr strictly greater than package.count to stay in bounds -- num_sifr == package.count passes the existing check but still overflows by one element. This is exactly the case probe()'s existing num_sifr++ workaround ("Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is one higher than the SQTY reported value") is written to accommodate: when a DSDT's SINF package count equals SQTY+1, the workaround makes num_sifr equal to package.count, which is precisely the boundary that overflows here. Found via UBSan (array-index-out-of-bounds) on hardware where HKEY.SQTY returns 37 and HKEY.SINF()'s package has 38 elements: num_sifr becomes 38 after the += 1 workaround, the loop correctly fills indices 0..37, and the sentinel write then targets index 38, one past the end -- a silent 4-byte heap overflow on kernels without CONFIG_UBSAN. Tightening the rejection check to num_sifr <= package.count would avoid the overflow but breaks probe() entirely on exactly this hardware, since num_sifr == package.count is the case the off-by-one workaround exists to support. Nothing else in the driver reads this sentinel value back, so simply skip the write when there is no room for it instead.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.
- Exploit odds
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
- Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Record status
- Received
Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8
- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges needed
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-89436.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-89436. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
