Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:20:20 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>
cc:     syzbot <syzbot+56f9673bb4cdcbeb0e92@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        <arnd@arndb.de>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>, <keescook@chromium.org>,
        <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in mon_bin_vma_fault
In-Reply-To: <20191121084842.095edf87@suzdal.zaitcev.lan>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1911211118450.1553-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> Anyway... If you are looking at it too, what do you think about not using
> any locks in mon_bin_vma_fault() at all? Isn't it valid? I think I tried
> to be "safe", but it only uses things that are constants unless we're
> opening and closing; a process cannot make page faults unless it has
> some thing mapped; and that is only possible if device is open and stays
> open. Can you find a hole in this reasoning?

I think you're right.  But one thing concerns me: What happens if the 
same buffer is mapped by more than one process?  Do you allow that?  I 
haven't read the code in enough detail to see.

Alan Stern