CVE-2026-90339

powerpc/syscall: Fix syscall skip handling for seccomp and ptrace

N/A
Published: September 17, 2026 at 04:08 PM UTC
Updated: October 19, 2026 at 09:19 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: powerpc/syscall: Fix syscall skip handling for seccomp and ptrace After enabling GENERIC_ENTRY on PowerPC, syscall_enter_from_user_mode() returns -1 as a sentinel to signal that seccomp or ptrace has intercepted the syscall and already set a return value via syscall_set_return_value(). system_call_exception() was not handling this sentinel, and since -1UL is >= NR_syscalls, the code fell into the out-of-range path and returned -ENOSYS, overwriting the errno already placed in regs->gpr[3]. The naive fix of checking r0 == -1L before the NR_syscalls bounds check is ambiguous: a user legitimately calling syscall(-1) also produces r0 == -1L, and a tracer intercepting such a call would have its injected return value silently discarded. Fix this by introducing a thread flag that is set whenever syscall_set_return_value() explicitly updates the return value. In system_call_exception(), check and clear this flag before dispatching the syscall, and return the preset value directly when it is present. This ensures that an explicitly supplied return value always suppresses syscall execution, regardless of the syscall number. This handles all seccomp actions correctly: - SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE (no tracer), SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF: all call syscall_set_return_value(), flag is set, injected value returned. - SECCOMP_RET_TRAP, SECCOMP_RET_KILL: call syscall_rollback() and deliver a signal; flag is not set, but the process is dying so the return value is irrelevant. The fix covers both ppc32 and ppc64 with no #ifdefs.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

7.2bee25f97ad24641df55cb3887eb5bfcb2b9d8fbc
Vendor states this is fixed in 19b54740e2e1102c7d48553d9e0347c1f6af22b0 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 69cb2be898be6d5826cacd1a628f6945a24480b6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2.6 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3-rc1 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card