Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:29:48 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Raw sockets and splnet() Message-ID: <20021213191946.Y33706-100000@gateway.posi.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there any particular reason that the raw socket implementation in
net/raw_usrreq.c does not require splnet() protection? It seems as though
adding splnet()/splx() calls to the various raw_* routines would greatly
reduce the size of net/rtsock.c, in which many of the routines simply wrap
their raw_ counterparts with splnet()/splx().
Currently, it appears that routing sockets are the only consumer of the raw
socket interface at the moment, but if another consumer were to exist then
they would have to do the same splnet()/splx() hackery I imagine. Wouldn't it
make sense to just put the logic into net/raw_usrreq.c and be done with it?
Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks,
Kelly
--
Kelly Yancey -- kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org}
Visit the BSD driver database: http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021213191946.Y33706-100000>