# CVE-2022-49899: fscrypt: stop using keyrings subsystem for fscrypt_master_key > A use-after-free vulnerability in the Linux kernel's fscrypt subsystem allows attackers to potentially execute code or cause a denial of service. - **Severity:** High 7.8 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Any signed-in user - **Attackable:** Local or same network only - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** Yes - **Published:** 1 May 2025 - **Updated:** 5 Aug 2026 - **Also known as:** DEBIAN-CVE-2022-49899, GHSA-6xrp-v9gf-f7mv, UBUNTU-CVE-2022-49899 ## What is CVE-2022-49899? CVE-2022-49899 is a high-severity use after free vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 1 May 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. ### Official description 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. ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2022-49899? It affects 1 product. Products: Linux kernel. ## How do I fix CVE-2022-49899? Apply the vendor's patch. ## Is CVE-2022-49899 being exploited? There is no known exploitation of CVE-2022-49899 in the wild and no public exploit code. ## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel - [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild) ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2022-49899 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2022-49899 is a high-severity use after free vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 1 May 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2022-49899 in the wild and no public exploit code. Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page. Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-49899/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-49899/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49899 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49899 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2022-49899 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-49899/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.