Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-109105-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:32:53 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
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: <ZfsBpal_29lihveI@tiehlicka>
References: <2024030649-CVE-2024-26628-f6ce@gregkh>
 <Zerheyn-4rB5kySt@tiehlicka>
 <20240314110938.GM1522089@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240314110938.GM1522089@google.com>

On Thu 14-03-24 11:09:38, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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.

Are you talking about lockdep warning or anything else?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs