CVE-2026-68147 Affecting linux-6.12 package, versions <6.12.101-1~deb12u1


Severity

Recommended
low

Based on default assessment until relevant scores are available.

Threat Intelligence

EPSS
0.14% (4th percentile)

Do your applications use this vulnerable package?

In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.

Test your applications
  • Snyk IDSNYK-ECHOLATEST-LINUX612-18912473
  • published18 Aug 2026
  • disclosed10 Aug 2026

Introduced: 10 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-68147  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

Upgrade Echo:latest linux-6.12 to version 6.12.101-1~deb12u1 or higher.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream linux-6.12 package and not the linux-6.12 package as distributed by Echo. See How to fix? for Echo:latest relevant fixed versions and status.

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.)

CVSS Base Scores

version 3.1