Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103158-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:09:38 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	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: <20240314110938.GM1522089@google.com>
References: <2024030649-CVE-2024-26628-f6ce@gregkh>
 <Zerheyn-4rB5kySt@tiehlicka>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Zerheyn-4rB5kySt@tiehlicka>

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024, Michal Hocko wrote:

> 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)?

Looks like the patch fixes a warning which can crash some kernels.  So
the CVE appears to be fixing that, rather than the impossible deadlock.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]