25 lines
944 B
Plaintext
25 lines
944 B
Plaintext
|
Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and
|
||
|
|
listen_lock have to be bh-safe?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Do the netrom and rose locks have to be bh-safe?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A device might be deleted after lookup in the SIOCADDRT ioctl but before it's
|
||
|
|
being used.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Routes to a device being taken down might be deleted by ax25_rt_device_down
|
||
|
|
but added by somebody else before the device has been deleted fully.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Massive amounts of lock_kernel / unlock_kernel are just a temporary solution to
|
||
|
|
get around the removal of SOCKOPS_WRAP. A serious locking strategy has to be
|
||
|
|
implemented.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The ax25_rt_find_route synopsys is pervert but I somehow had to deal with
|
||
|
|
the race caused by the static variable in it's previous implementation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Implement proper socket locking in netrom and rose.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Check socket locking when ax25_rcv is sending to raw sockets. In particular
|
||
|
|
ax25_send_to_raw() seems fishy. Heck - ax25_rcv is fishy.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Handle XID and TEST frames properly.
|