There are different kinds of mathematical truth, and depending on what you would want in a notion of absolute truth, some of these may fit - or not. My personal stance would be that absolute truth is not a fruitful concept, and probably not worth thinking about too much.
The agreement about truth amongst mathematicians
A defining feature of mathematics as a field is that mathematicians can generally reach consensus about the truth of a particular mathematical statement, by providing a purtative proof, critizing its weak points, shoring them up, etc.
This process can require clarification/abstraction: If the a priori assumed axiom systems of the involved mathematicians differ, they may have to move from "X is true" to "Axiom system Y proves X". If a statement written by a mathematician using classical logic is read literally by a constructivist, it will often be false - but constructivists know how to read classical mathematics in a way that retains truth.
Even on the "fringes" of mathematical foundations, say the ultrafinitists would typically attack results as being meaningless, rather than being false.
We thus see evidence of a notion of truth that trancends individual view points or perspectives, in manner that most fields of philosophy are not privy to. This also differs from the one in the natural sciences, where experiments can provide an arbiter of truth.
The notion of truth described above is - on purpose - divorced from any assumptions about the ontological status of mathematical objects. One can refuse to entertain this question at all (which essentially leads to formalism, and the unresolved questions of why we are playing this game, and why math works so well to describe nature).
The stance that most readily leads to a notion of absolute truth would be platonism in the strict, "one mathematical universal", form. This does not mean that any mathematics not done in the "one and only correct system" is invalid - since we can translate between the various systems, we can recover (almost) all other systems as a fragment of the chosen true reality.
A stance that seems widespread amongst mathematicians working on foundations is that of mathematical relativism (described very nicely by Andrej Bauer here). We just accept a plethora of mathematical universes, and study those we find most fascinating. Depending on what is meant by absolute truth, this might be incompatible with such things.
Mathematics offers far more absolute truth than other areas, but asking for perfectly absolute truth probably doesnt make much sense.