linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

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]

Message-ID: <1277742.1606224090@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:21:30 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> > My preference would be to fall through.  The case number is the state machine
> > state, as indexed by call->unmarshall.
> 
> Then ideally the state machine states should be enums and not numbers
> and the compiler should use a default block for unhandled states right?
> 
> Is code like call->marshall++ a common style for kernel state machines?
> Perhaps not.

How the value is interpreted is unique to each delivery function, of which
there are a number, since it counts out the separate parts of the xdr encoding
for that particular RPC request or reply block.

Maybe "state machine" isn't the right term.

David