linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] iommu/amd: Add default branch in amd_iommu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Sep 2018 13:37:03 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com,
        kevin.tian@...el.com,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        yi.l.liu@...el.com, yi.y.sun@...el.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        tiwei.bie@...el.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] iommu/amd: Add default branch in
 amd_iommu_capable()

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:09:15 +0800
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> Otherwise, there will be a build warning:
> 
> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c:3083:2: warning: enumeration value
> 'IOMMU_CAP_AUX_DOMAIN' not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
> 
> There is no functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> index 4e04fff23977..237ae6db4cfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> @@ -3077,6 +3077,8 @@ static bool amd_iommu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
>  		return (irq_remapping_enabled == 1);
>  	case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC:
>  		return false;
> +	default:
> +		break;
>  	}
>  
>  	return false;

Seems like a bug fix that doesn't need to be part of this RFC, send it
separately.  Thanks,

Alex