In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: don't allow journal inode to have encrypt flag
Mounting a filesystem whose journal inode has the encrypt flag causes a
NULL dereference in fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() when the 'inlinecrypt'
mount option is used.
The problem is that when jbd2_journal_init_inode() calls bmap(), it
eventually finds its way into ext4_iomap_begin(), which calls
fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(). fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() requires that if
the inode is encrypted, then its encryption key must already be set up.
That's not the case here, since the journal inode is never "opened" like
a normal file would be. Hence the crash.
A reproducer is:
mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/vdb
debugfs -w /dev/vdb -R "set_inode_field <8> flags 0x80808"
mount /dev/vdb /mnt -o inlinecrypt
To fix this, make ext4 consider journal inodes with the encrypt flag to
be invalid. (Note, maybe other flags should be rejected on the journal
inode too. For now, this is just the minimal fix for the above issue.)
I've marked this as fixing the commit that introduced the call to
fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(), since that's what made an actual crash start
being possible. But this fix could be applied to any version of ext4
that supports the encrypt feature.
ext4: don't allow journal inode to have encrypt flag
Mounting a filesystem whose journal inode has the encrypt flag causes a
NULL dereference in fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() when the 'inlinecrypt'
mount option is used.
The problem is that when jbd2_journal_init_inode() calls bmap(), it
eventually finds its way into ext4_iomap_begin(), which calls
fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(). fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() requires that if
the inode is encrypted, then its encryption key must already be set up.
That's not the case here, since the journal inode is never "opened" like
a normal file would be. Hence the crash.
A reproducer is:
mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/vdb
debugfs -w /dev/vdb -R "set_inode_field <8> flags 0x80808"
mount /dev/vdb /mnt -o inlinecrypt
To fix this, make ext4 consider journal inodes with the encrypt flag to
be invalid. (Note, maybe other flags should be rejected on the journal
inode too. For now, this is just the minimal fix for the above issue.)
I've marked this as fixing the commit that introduced the call to
fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(), since that's what made an actual crash start
being possible. But this fix could be applied to any version of ext4
that supports the encrypt feature.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:45:00 +0000
Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
---|---|---|
Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't allow journal inode to have encrypt flag Mounting a filesystem whose journal inode has the encrypt flag causes a NULL dereference in fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() when the 'inlinecrypt' mount option is used. The problem is that when jbd2_journal_init_inode() calls bmap(), it eventually finds its way into ext4_iomap_begin(), which calls fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(). fscrypt_limit_io_blocks() requires that if the inode is encrypted, then its encryption key must already be set up. That's not the case here, since the journal inode is never "opened" like a normal file would be. Hence the crash. A reproducer is: mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/vdb debugfs -w /dev/vdb -R "set_inode_field <8> flags 0x80808" mount /dev/vdb /mnt -o inlinecrypt To fix this, make ext4 consider journal inodes with the encrypt flag to be invalid. (Note, maybe other flags should be rejected on the journal inode too. For now, this is just the minimal fix for the above issue.) I've marked this as fixing the commit that introduced the call to fscrypt_limit_io_blocks(), since that's what made an actual crash start being possible. But this fix could be applied to any version of ext4 that supports the encrypt feature. | |
Title | ext4: don't allow journal inode to have encrypt flag | |
References |
|

Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2025-09-15T14:21:14.381Z
Reserved: 2025-09-15T13:58:00.976Z
Link: CVE-2022-50277

No data.

Status : Awaiting Analysis
Published: 2025-09-15T15:15:38.700
Modified: 2025-09-15T15:22:27.090
Link: CVE-2022-50277

No data.

No data.