| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and |
| 2 | listen_lock have to be bh-safe? |
| 3 | |
| 4 | Do the netrom and rose locks have to be bh-safe? |
| 5 | |
| 6 | A device might be deleted after lookup in the SIOCADDRT ioctl but before it's |
| 7 | being used. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | Routes to a device being taken down might be deleted by ax25_rt_device_down |
| 10 | but added by somebody else before the device has been deleted fully. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Massive amounts of lock_kernel / unlock_kernel are just a temporary solution to |
| 13 | get around the removal of SOCKOPS_WRAP. A serious locking strategy has to be |
| 14 | implemented. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | The ax25_rt_find_route synopsys is pervert but I somehow had to deal with |
| 17 | the race caused by the static variable in it's previous implementation. |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Implement proper socket locking in netrom and rose. |
| 20 | |
| 21 | Check socket locking when ax25_rcv is sending to raw sockets. In particular |
| 22 | ax25_send_to_raw() seems fishy. Heck - ax25_rcv is fishy. |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Handle XID and TEST frames properly. |