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  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:   Sun, 22 Nov 2020 21:35:58 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <>
To:     James Bottomley <>
Cc:     Kees Cook <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,
        linux-kernel <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        Linux ARM <>,,,,,,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <>,,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,,,,,,,,,
        linux-input <>,,,
        Linux Media Mailing List <>,, Linux-MM <>,,,,,,,,,,,
        linux-wireless <>,
        Network Development <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>,,,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>, Joe Perches <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
<> wrote:
> Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it?  All that fixing this
> error will do is get the driver to print "oh dear there's a problem"
> under four more conditions than it previously did.
> We've been at this for three years now with nearly a thousand patches,
> firstly marking all the fall throughs with /* fall through */ and later
> changing it to fallthrough.  At some point we do have to ask if the
> effort is commensurate with the protection afforded.  Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.

It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account
the future mistakes that it might prevent, too. So even if there were
zero problems found so far, it is still a positive change.

I would agree if these changes were high risk, though; but they are
almost trivial.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists