Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:46:47AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > To confirm, reverting this fixes the problem I was seeing in 4.13.  I've
> > queued it up for the next 4.13-stable release as well.
> 
> Commit 81f95076281f ("firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend") may
> seem kludgy but the reason for it was to cleanup the horrible forced and
> required UMH lock even when the UMH lock was *not* even needed, which was later
> removed via commit 06a45a93e7d34aa ("firmware: move umh try locks into the umh
> code").

So what does this mean now that it is reverted?

> Removing the old UMH lock even when the UMH lock was *not* needed was the right
> thing to do but commit 81f95076281f (("firmware: add sanity check on
> shutdown/suspend") was put in place as a safe guard as the lock was also
> placing an implicit sanity check on the API. It ensures the API with the cache
> was used as designed, otherwise you do run the risk of *not getting the
> firmware you may need* -- Marcel seems to acknowledge this possibility.
> 
> It may be possible for us to already have in place safeguards so that upon
> resume we are ensuring the path to the firmware *is* available, so IMHO we
> should remove this *iff* we can provide this guarantee.  Otherwise the check is
> valid. You see, although the UMH lock was bogus, it did implicitly ask the
> question: is it safe for *any* helper to run and make assumptions on the
> filesystem then?
> 
> In lieu of this question being answered the warning is valid given the design
> of the firmware API and the having the cache available as a measure to resolve
> this race.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here at all.

To be specific, what, if anything, is a problem with the current state
of Linus's tree (and the next 4.13-stable release)?

If something needs to be fixed, can you make a patch showing that?  Or
do we also need to revert anything else as well to get back to a "better
working" state?

thanks,

greg k-h