Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212954-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:32:41 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, 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: <Zmq8uSVv0X5f7xx+@duo.ucw.cz>
References: <2024030649-CVE-2024-26628-f6ce@gregkh>
 <Zerheyn-4rB5kySt@tiehlicka>
 <20240314110938.GM1522089@google.com>
 <ZfsBpal_29lihveI@tiehlicka>
 <20240320154734.GU1522089@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="210OJhfsyvcl1VHN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240320154734.GU1522089@google.com>


--210OJhfsyvcl1VHN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed 2024-03-20 15:47:34, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Michal Hocko wrote:
>=20
> > On Thu 14-03-24 11:09:38, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 08 Mar 2024, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > On Wed 06-03-24 06:46:11, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > > >=20
> > > > >        CPU0                    CPU1
> > > > >        ----                    ----
> > > > >   lock(&svms->lock);
> > > > >                                lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
> > > > >                                lock(&svms->lock);
> > > > >   lock((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work));
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I believe this cannot really lead to a deadlock in practice, beca=
use
> > > > > svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker only takes the mmap_read_lock if th=
e BO
> > > > > refcount is non-0. That means it's impossible that svm_range_bo_r=
elease
> > > > > is running concurrently. However, there is no good way to annotat=
e this.
> > > >=20
> > > > OK, so is this even a bug (not to mention a security/weakness)?
> > >=20
> > > Looks like the patch fixes a warning which can crash some kernels.  So
> > > the CVE appears to be fixing that, rather than the impossible deadloc=
k.
> >=20
> > Are you talking about lockdep warning or anything else?
>=20
> Anything that triggers a BUG() or a WARN() (as per the splat in the
> commit message).  Many in-field kernels are configured to panic on
> BUG()s and WARN()s, thus triggering them are presently considered local
> DoS and attract CVE status.

So... because it is possible to configure machine to reboot on
warning, now every warning is a security issue?

Lockdep is for debugging, if someone uses it in production with panic
on reboot, they are getting exactly what they are asking for.

Not a security problem.
								Pavel
--=20
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

--210OJhfsyvcl1VHN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRPfPO7r0eAhk010v0w5/Bqldv68gUCZmq8uQAKCRAw5/Bqldv6
8gdkAJwMHfejOxf/mcV1y4L8XZCmnaDjPQCgrsTdi2mc2irA3ssncwxpSA+R7KI=
=6oKV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--210OJhfsyvcl1VHN--