CVE-2026-89472

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: power: supply: charger-manager: register regulators before exposing sysfs charger_manager_remove() and the err_reg_extcon probe error path free each charger regulator with regulator_put() before tearing down the power_supply sysfs entries (power_supply_unregister()). charger_manager_remove() also calls try_charger_enable(cm, false) after the regulator_put() loop. A concurrent write to a charger's externally_control sysfs attribute that lands between regulator_put() and power_supply_unregister() can run charger_externally_control_store() and call try_charger_enable(), which, when charging is enabled, dereferences the already-freed consumer handle. When charging is enabled, try_charger_enable(cm, false) in .remove() also dereferences the freed handles directly. Both leave use-after-free windows. Symmetrically, probe registers the sysfs entries (power_supply_register) before acquiring the regulators (regulator_get, inside charger_manager_register_extcon), so userspace can reach externally_control before the regulators are available. Split charger_manager_register_extcon() on the sync/async boundary: charger_manager_get_regulators() (regulator_get only, no async producer) now runs before power_supply_register() so sysfs is not live before regulators are available, and charger_manager_register_extcon() keeps only the extcon notifier/work setup, still after power_supply_register() so a power_supply_register() failure cannot reach extcon setup. This keeps the sysfs setup/teardown ordering symmetric without introducing an asynchronous producer on the earlier probe-error path. Move power_supply_unregister() and try_charger_enable(cm, false) ahead of the regulator_put() loop on both teardown paths, and adjust err_reg_extcon (power_supply_unregister() then fall through err_regulator for regulator_put(); get_regulators self-rolls back on its own failure). This does not address the separate extcon-notifier-driven deref of the same handles, which needs its own synchronization design. Found by an in-house static analysis tool.

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

1. 2026-09-11 19:38 UTC ReservedThe CVE id was reserved by its CNA
2. 2026-09-11 20:19 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
3. 2026-10-30 13:20 UTC 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

2026-09-11 20:19 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-30 13:20 UTC

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

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-2026-89472.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-89472. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge