Bug 2513405 (CVE-2026-68147) - CVE-2026-68147 kernel: fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devices()
Summary: CVE-2026-68147 kernel: fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devic...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-68147
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-08-10 12:35 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-08-11 15:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-08-10 12:35:31 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devices()

When a blk_crypto_key starts being used or is evicted, fs/crypto/ calls
fscrypt_get_devices() to get the filesystem's list of block devices,
then iterates over them and calls blk_crypto_config_supported(),
blk_crypto_start_using_key(), or blk_crypto_evict_key() on each one.

Currently, the block device pointers are placed in a dynamically
allocated array.  This dynamic allocation is problematic because:

- It can fail, especially at the fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() call
  site when it's invoked for inode eviction under direct reclaim.

- fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() doesn't handle the failure.  It
  just zeroizes and frees the blk_crypto_key without calling
  blk_crypto_evict_key().  That causes a use-after-free.

For now, let's fix this in the straightforward and easily-backportable
way by switching to an on-stack array.  Currently the fscrypt
multi-device functionality is used only by f2fs, which has a hardcoded
limit of 8 block devices.  An on-stack array works fine for that.

(Of course, this solution won't scale up to large number of block
devices.  For that we'd need a different solution, like moving the block
device iteration into the filesystem.  Or in the case of btrfs, which
will only support blk-crypto-fallback, we should make it just call
blk-crypto-fallback directly, so the block devices won't be needed.)


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.