CVE-2022-49899

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-05-01. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
Trending — 3 sources updated this week
5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

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.

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5(medium)
EG Risk
25(Track)
EG Risk 25/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity55% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability0% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS PROB
0%
EPSS %ILE
12%
KEV
Not listed

Published

May 1, 2025

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFixed in / PatchReleasedSource
linuxKernel @ 5.10.154osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 49× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 117 total refreshes for this CVE.

  1. 2026-08-07 16:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-08-06 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-08-05 19:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-08-05 09:28 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-08-05 09:28 UTCGHSA enrichment
  6. 2026-08-04 15:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-08-04 11:05 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-08-04 11:05 UTCGHSA enrichment
  9. 2026-08-04 10:35 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-08-04 09:44 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-08-04 09:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  12. 2026-08-03 10:33 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-08-02 02:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-08-01 04:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-08-01 04:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-30 16:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-30 01:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-28 15:34 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-26 14:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-26 14:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-25 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-24 14:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-24 07:41 UTCOSV refresh
  24. 2026-07-23 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-23 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-07-23 02:16 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-07-22 23:04 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-07-22 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-22 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-20 17:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-19 14:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-19 14:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-16 17:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-15 16:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-15 16:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-15 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-15 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-13 06:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-13 06:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-12 05:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-09 19:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-08 15:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-07-07 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-07-07 02:51 UTCOSV refresh
  28. 2026-07-06 16:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-07-06 02:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-07-05 02:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-07-04 06:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  32. 2026-07-01 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-30 23:20 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-29 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-06-28 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-28 04:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-28 04:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-24 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-24 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-22 14:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-06-18 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-06-18 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-06-18 14:05 UTCOSV refresh
  57. 2026-06-17 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-06-17 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-06-15 17:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-06-14 23:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-06-12 23:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-06-12 23:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  66. 2026-06-11 13:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  67. 2026-06-11 13:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  68. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-06-08 14:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  71. 2026-06-08 14:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  72. 2026-06-07 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  73. 2026-06-07 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  75. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2022-49899?
CVE-2022-49899 is a medium vulnerability published on May 1, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fscrypt: stop using keyrings subsystem for fscryptmasterkey The approach of fs/crypto/ internally managing the fscryptmasterkey structs as the payloads of "struct key" objects contained in a "struct key" keyring has outlived its…
When was CVE-2022-49899 disclosed?
CVE-2022-49899 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on May 1, 2025, with the most recent update on August 5, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2022-49899 actively exploited?
CVE-2022-49899 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the top 87.9% of all scored CVEs.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2022-49899?
CVE-2022-49899 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2022-49899?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2022-49899, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2022-49899

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2022-49899?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.