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: <20201201140449.GG2767@kadam> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:04:49 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com, wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net, drbd-dev@...n.linbit.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-geode@...ts.infradead.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > 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. > > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6qKAO8gxSp=Kr_CQ@mail.gmail.com/ This is a fallthrough to a return and not to a break. That should trigger a warning. The fallthrough to a break should not generate a warning. The bug we're trying to fix is "missing break statement" but if the result of the bug is "we hit a break statement" then now we're just talking about style. GCC should limit itself to warning about potentially buggy code. regards, dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists