Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-97026-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:59:23 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-26628: drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning
Message-ID: <Zerheyn-4rB5kySt@tiehlicka>
References: <2024030649-CVE-2024-26628-f6ce@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2024030649-CVE-2024-26628-f6ce@gregkh>

On Wed 06-03-24 06:46:11, Greg KH wrote:
[...]
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&svms->lock);
>                                lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
>                                lock(&svms->lock);
>   lock((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work));
> 
> I believe this cannot really lead to a deadlock in practice, because
> svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker only takes the mmap_read_lock if the BO
> refcount is non-0. That means it's impossible that svm_range_bo_release
> is running concurrently. However, there is no good way to annotate this.

OK, so is this even a bug (not to mention a security/weakness)?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs