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:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 18:05:45 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>
Cc:     Edward Cree <>,
        ALSA Development Mailing List <>,,,,
        linux-wireless <>,
        Linux Fbdev development list <>,
        dri-devel <>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,
        James Bottomley <>,,,,
        MTD Maling List <>,,,,,,,,
        Lars Ellenberg <>,
        driverdevel <>,,,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        scsi <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        linux-rdma <>,,,
        linux-security-module <>,
        amd-gfx list <>,,,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <>,,,
        linux-input <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <>,
        Kees Cook <>,,
        linux-arm-msm <>,
        Intel Graphics Development <>,,,,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <>,,,,
        Nouveau Dev <>,,
        ceph-devel <>,,
        Linux ARM <>,,
        Linux Watchdog Mailing List <>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <>,,,
        Linux-MM <>,
        Network Development <>,,
        Linux MMC List <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>,
        Linux-Renesas <>,, USB list <>,
        NetFilter <>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <>,, Joe Perches <>,
        linux-integrity <>,
        target-devel <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <> wrote:
> The maintainer is not necessarily the owner/author of the code, and
> thus may not know the intent of the code.

Agreed, I was not blaming maintainers -- just trying to point out that
the problem is there :-)

In those cases, it is still very useful: we add the `fallthrough` and
a comment saying `FIXME: fallthrough intended? Figure this out...`.
Thus a previous unknown unknown is now a known unknown. And no new
unknown unknowns will be introduced since we enabled the warning

> BTW, you cannot mindlessly fix the latter, as you cannot know if
> "(a == b)" or "((a = b))" was intended, without understanding the code
> (and the (possibly unavailable) data sheet, and the hardware, ...).

That's right, I was referring to the cases where the compiler saves
someone time from a typo they just made.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists