VulnerabilityPublished 11 Sep 2026Updated 13 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-89436: Linux kernel · platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[]

Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-j34j-9955-32cv

What to do

AI-suggested

A fix has been implemented in the Linux kernel to skip the sentinel write when there is no room, preventing the heap overflow. Users should update to the fixed kernel version once available. No other mitigation is required as the fix preserves existing hardware compatibility and prevents the overflow.

Description

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.

Impact

This vulnerability results in a silent 4-byte heap overflow in the kernel on affected hardware, which could potentially lead to memory corruption. However, no known exploits in the wild have been reported. The impact is limited to affected Linux kernel versions running on hardware with this specific ACPI configuration.

Summary

The Linux kernel panasonic-laptop ACPI driver had a vulnerability where a sentinel write was performed one element past the allocated array pcc->sinf[], causing a heap overflow. This occurred because the code allowed num_sifr to equal package.count, which led to writing at index package.count, exceeding the allocated size of num_sifr elements (0..num_sifr-1). The existing workaround incremented num_sifr to match package.count in some hardware cases, triggering the overflow. The fix avoids writing the sentinel when no space is available, preventing the overflow without breaking hardware compatibility.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…