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.
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.
n'>index : net-next.git
ARM: fix backtrace
Recent kernels have changed their behaviour to be more inconsistent
when handling printk continuations. With todays kernels, the output
looks sane on the console, but dmesg splits individual printk()s which
do not have the KERN_CONT prefix into separate lines.
Since the assembly code is not trivial to add the KERN_CONT, and we
ideally want to avoid using KERN_CONT (as multiple printk()s can race
between different threads), convert the assembly dumping the register
values to C code, and have the C code build the output a line at a
time before dumping to the console.
This avoids the KERN_CONT issue, and also avoids situations where the
output is intermixed with other console activity.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>