Message-ID: <202011201244.78E002D5@keescook>
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:48:01 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        coreteam@...filter.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com,
        GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-geode@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:  
> > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > > > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> > > > 
> > > > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> > > > add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just
> > > > letting the code fall through to the next case.
> > > > 
> > > > Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this
> > > > change[1] is meant to be reverted at some point. So, this patch helps
> > > > to move in that direction.
> > > > 
> > > > Something important to mention is that there is currently a discrepancy
> > > > between GCC and Clang when dealing with switch fall-through to empty case
> > > > statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return
> > > > statement[2][3][4].  
> > > 
> > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before?
> > > 
> > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped
> > > find?
> > > 
> > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could
> > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?!  
> > 
> > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think
> > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn't impact the machine
> > code, since the compiler will happily optimize away any behavioral
> > redundancy.
> 
> If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.

I'd like to avoid splitting common -W options between default and W=2
just based on the compiler. Getting -Wimplicit-fallthrough enabled found
plenty of bugs, so making sure it works correctly for both compilers
feels justified to me. (This is just a subset of the same C language
short-coming.)

> I think clang is just being annoying here, but if I'm the only one who
> feels this way chances are I'm wrong :)

It's being pretty pedantic, but I don't think it's unreasonable to
explicitly state how every case ends. GCC's silence for the case of
"fall through to a break" doesn't really seem justified.

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists