Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Support
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
L
linux
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
Analytics
Analytics
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
nexedi
linux
Commits
d1009a88
Commit
d1009a88
authored
Aug 05, 2002
by
Ralf Bächle
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Update todo list.
parent
62fcaee9
Changes
1
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
5 additions
and
17 deletions
+5
-17
net/ax25/TODO
net/ax25/TODO
+5
-17
No files found.
net/ax25/TODO
View file @
d1009a88
af_ax25.c:ax25_connect:
There is a race with changing the socket state here which should be
fixed by introduction of proper socket locking:
if (sk->state != TCP_ESTABLISHED) {
/* Not in ABM, not in WAIT_UA -> failed */
sock->state = SS_UNCONNECTED;
return sock_error(sk); /* Always set at this point */
}
Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and
Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and
listen_lock have to be interrupt safe?
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
A device might be deleted after lookup in the SIOCADDRT ioctl but before it's
being used.
being used.
Routes to a device begin taken down might be deleted by ax25_rt_device_down
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.
but added by somebody else before the device has been deleted fully.
Introduce a clear locking strategy. What I've put there is simply an evil
hack to get the code to survive.
Massive amounts of lock_kernel / unlock_kernel are just a temporary solution to
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
get around the removal of SOCKOPS_WRAP. A serious locking strategy has to be
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment