<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 13:55:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-68147 — fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devices()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-68147</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devices()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a blk_crypto_key starts being used or is evicted, fs/crypto/ calls
fscrypt_get_devices() to get the filesystem&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, the block device pointers are placed in a dynamically
allocated array.  This dynamic allocation is problematic because:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- It can fail, especially at the fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() call
  site when it&amp;#39;s invoked for inode eviction under direct reclaim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() doesn&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For now, let&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Of course, this solution won&amp;#39;t scale up to large number of block
devices.  For that we&amp;#39;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&amp;#39;t be needed.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fscrypt: Avoid dynamic allocation in fscrypt_get_devices()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a blk_crypto_key starts being used or is evicted, fs/crypto/ calls
fscrypt_get_devices() to get the filesystem&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, the block device pointers are placed in a dynamically
allocated array.  This dynamic allocation is problematic because:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- It can fail, especially at the fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() call
  site when it&amp;#39;s invoked for inode eviction under direct reclaim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- fscrypt_destroy_inline_crypt_key() doesn&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For now, let&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Of course, this solution won&amp;#39;t scale up to large number of block
devices.  For that we&amp;#39;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&amp;#39;t be needed.)&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-68147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
