linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: 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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:37:59 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang



On 4/20/21 15:30, Jens Axboe wrote:

>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>>>  	switch (interpret_errors()) {
>>>  	case 1:
>>>  		cont->error();
>>> +		fallthrough;
>>>  	case 2:
>>>  		break;
>>>  	case 0:
> 
> I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied
> for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases
> are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are
> obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ.
> 
> IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the
> two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes
> sense.
> 

Yeah; I'll resend this with a break, instead.

Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo