GHSA-H8P2-7W9Q-6G4F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-19 18:31
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

powerpc/hv-gpci: fix preempt count leak in sysfs show paths

Four sysfs show() callbacks in hv-gpci take get_cpu_var(hv_gpci_reqb) (which calls preempt_disable()) but only call the matching put_cpu_var() on the error path under the 'out:' label. Every successful read leaks one preempt_disable():

processor_bus_topology_show() processor_config_show() affinity_domain_via_virtual_processor_show() affinity_domain_via_domain_show()

(affinity_domain_via_partition_show() was already correct.)

On a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel, repeated reads raise preempt_count and eventually return to userspace with preemption still disabled. The next user-mode page fault then hits faulthandler_disabled() == 1, gets forced to SIGSEGV, and the resulting coredump trips 'BUG: scheduling while atomic' in call_usermodehelper_exec -> wait_for_completion_state -> schedule:

BUG: scheduling while atomic: //0x00000004 ... __schedule_bug+0x6c/0x90 __schedule+0x58c/0x13a0 schedule+0x48/0x1a0 schedule_timeout+0x104/0x170 wait_for_completion_state+0x16c/0x330 call_usermodehelper_exec+0x254/0x2d0 vfs_coredump+0x1050/0x2590 get_signal+0xb9c/0xc80 do_notify_resume+0xf8/0x470

Add an out_success label that calls put_cpu_var() before returning the byte count, mirroring affinity_domain_via_partition_show().

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-64070"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-19T16:17:47Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\npowerpc/hv-gpci: fix preempt count leak in sysfs show paths\n\nFour sysfs show() callbacks in hv-gpci take get_cpu_var(hv_gpci_reqb)\n(which calls preempt_disable()) but only call the matching put_cpu_var()\non the error path under the \u0027out:\u0027 label. Every successful read leaks\none preempt_disable():\n\n  processor_bus_topology_show()\n  processor_config_show()\n  affinity_domain_via_virtual_processor_show()\n  affinity_domain_via_domain_show()\n\n(affinity_domain_via_partition_show() was already correct.)\n\nOn a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel, repeated reads raise preempt_count and\neventually return to userspace with preemption still disabled. The\nnext user-mode page fault then hits faulthandler_disabled() == 1,\ngets forced to SIGSEGV, and the resulting coredump trips\n\u0027BUG: scheduling while atomic\u0027 in call_usermodehelper_exec -\u003e\nwait_for_completion_state -\u003e schedule:\n\n  BUG: scheduling while atomic: \u003ctask\u003e/\u003cpid\u003e/0x00000004\n  ...\n  __schedule_bug+0x6c/0x90\n  __schedule+0x58c/0x13a0\n  schedule+0x48/0x1a0\n  schedule_timeout+0x104/0x170\n  wait_for_completion_state+0x16c/0x330\n  call_usermodehelper_exec+0x254/0x2d0\n  vfs_coredump+0x1050/0x2590\n  get_signal+0xb9c/0xc80\n  do_notify_resume+0xf8/0x470\n\nAdd an out_success label that calls put_cpu_var() before returning\nthe byte count, mirroring affinity_domain_via_partition_show().",
  "id": "GHSA-h8p2-7w9q-6g4f",
  "modified": "2026-07-19T18:31:51Z",
  "published": "2026-07-19T18:31:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64070"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/903409000a07ac8e31ffedeb8516f4f8d67150c8"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dbc30a57bd8e026995e9fa8e8c31cffd18542c01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…