Re: AX.25 in kernel 2.5 status?

From: Steven Whitehouse (terhi.victor@logonet.com)
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 17:56:23 EEST

  • Next message: Ralf Baechle DO1GRB: "Re: AX.25 in kernel 2.5 status?"

    Hi,

    >
    > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:47:36PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
    >
    > > > I yesterday published my changes to redo the /proc files for AX.25,
    > > > NET/ROM and ROSE with the seq_file stuff. As usually these changesets
    > > > are available at http://linux-ham.bkbits.net/linux-2.5.
    > > >
    > > > 73 de DO1GRB op Ralf
    > >
    > > It seems you beat me to it :-) though there is one extra thing that still needs
    > > to be fixed in the uid code from my patch where ax25_findbyuid() returns
    > > a pointer to a structure which might disappear at any time. Its only use
    > > is to check permissions at bind time, so I just moved the check under
    > > the lock,
    >
    > Unfortunately the code is full of such funnies. Remember as the code is
    > in 2.5 there are no more locks outside protecting us from our own thread
    > safety - or rather the lack thereof. In particular the socket locking
    > is rather hard to get right.
    >
    Yes I know, I worked on this for DECnet a while back :-) My plan since I am
    rather constrained by time was to start at the lower levels of this
    and do one small easily testable feature as I get time to work on it
    and very slowly work towards the higher layers.
     
    > Another problem we still have - and we're sharing it with other protocols
    > such ipv4 - is that our proc code is holding a lock for the time the
    > /proc file is open. That's not a significant time but it may delay
    > access, so I've made most of those loads rw locks. Worst case a buggy
    > or malicious piece of software might even hold a proc file open for a long
    > time thereby stalling the functioning of the stack partially or fully.
    >
    Its only during read operations, not the open that the lock is held I
    think, but I agree that an rw lock is the best solution here.

    > If you could update your fix I certainly would accept it :)
    >
    > 73 de DO1GRB op Ralf
    >
    Ok. I'll do that,

    Steve.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
    the body of a message to ivz@ateme.net
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 17:52:12 EEST