In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fscrypt: stop using keyrings subsystem for fscrypt_master_key
The approach of fs/crypto/ internally managing the fscrypt_master_key
structs as the payloads of "struct key" objects contained in a
"struct key" keyring has outlived its usefulness. The original idea was
to simplify the code by reusing code from the keyrings subsystem.
However, several issues have arisen that can't easily be resolved:
- When a master key struct is destroyed, blk_crypto_evict_key() must be
called on any per-mode keys embedded in it. (This started being the
case when inline encryption support was added.) Yet, the keyrings
subsystem can arbitrarily delay the destruction of keys, even past the
time the filesystem was unmounted. Therefore, currently there is no
easy way to call blk_crypto_evict_key() when a master key is
destroyed. Currently, this is worked around by holding an extra
reference to the filesystem's request_queue(s). But it was overlooked
that the request_queue reference is *not* guaranteed to pin the
corresponding blk_crypto_profile too; for device-mapper devices that
support inline crypto, it doesn't. This can cause a use-after-free.
- When the last inode that was using an incompletely-removed master key
is evicted, the master key removal is completed by removing the key
struct from the keyring. Currently this is done via key_invalidate().
Yet, key_invalidate() takes the key semaphore. This can deadlock when
called from the shrinker, since in fscrypt_ioctl_add_key(), memory is
allocated with GFP_KERNEL under the same semaphore.
- More generally, the fact that the keyrings subsystem can arbitrarily
delay the destruction of keys (via garbage collection delay, or via
random processes getting temporary key references) is undesirable, as
it means we can't strictly guarantee that all secrets are ever wiped.
- Doing the master key lookups via the keyrings subsystem results in the
key_permission LSM hook being called. fscrypt doesn't want this, as
all access control for encrypted files is designed to happen via the
files themselves, like any other files. The workaround which SELinux
users are using is to change their SELinux policy to grant key search
access to all domains. This works, but it is an odd extra step that
shouldn't really have to be done.
The fix for all these issues is to change the implementation to what I
should have done originally: don't use the keyrings subsystem to keep
track of the filesystem's fscrypt_master_key structs. Instead, just
store them in a regular kernel data structure, and rework the reference
counting, locking, and lifetime accordingly. Retain support for
RCU-mode key lookups by using a hash table. Replace fscrypt_sb_free()
with fscrypt_sb_delete(), which releases the keys synchronously and runs
a bit earlier during unmount, so that block devices are still available.
A side effect of this patch is that neither the master keys themselves
nor the filesystem keyrings will be listed in /proc/keys anymore.
("Master key users" and the master key users keyrings will still be
listed.) However, this was mostly an implementation detail, and it was
intended just for debugging purposes. I don't know of anyone using it.
This patch does *not* change how "master key users" (->mk_users) works;
that still uses the keyrings subsystem. That is still needed for key
quotas, and changing that isn't necessary to solve the issues listed
above. If we decide to change that too, it would be a separate patch.
I've marked this as fixing the original commit that added the fscrypt
keyring, but as noted above the most important issue that this patch
fixes wasn't introduced until the addition of inline encryption support.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it