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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201117163235.GA23802@embeddedor> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:32:35 -0600 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>, Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@....com>, Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] mwifiex: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:15:59AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2020-11-17 at 10:09 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple > > warnings by explicitly adding multiple break statements instead of > > letting the code fall through to the next case. > > Thanks Gustavo. > > I think this is better style than the gcc allowed > undescribed fallthrough to break; > > gcc developers disagree though: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432 Yeah; I mention that in this[1] changelog text, together with the reasons why we think the Clang approach is safer. which is exactly the same information contained in the link[2] included in the changelog text for this commit. -- Gustavo [1] https://git.kernel.org/linus/4169e889e5889405d54cec27d6e9f7f0ce3c7096 [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
Powered by blists - more mailing lists