linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH][next] ASoC: ti: davinci-mcasp: Fix fall-through warning 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:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:14:52 +0300
From:   Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...il.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ASoC: ti: davinci-mcasp: Fix fall-through warning
 for Clang



On 28/05/2021 23:20, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> by explicitly adding a goto statement instead of letting the code fall
> through to the next case.
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> ---
> JFYI: We had thousands of these sorts of warnings and now we are down
>       to just 25 in linux-next. This is one of those last remaining
>       warnings.
> 
>  sound/soc/ti/davinci-mcasp.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/ti/davinci-mcasp.c b/sound/soc/ti/davinci-mcasp.c
> index b94220306d1a..587967720135 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/ti/davinci-mcasp.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/ti/davinci-mcasp.c
> @@ -2317,6 +2317,7 @@ static int davinci_mcasp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		break;
>  	default:
>  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No DMA controller found (%d)\n", ret);
> +		goto err;

Would:
	fallthrough;

be enough to silence the warning? If so, then I would prefer this version.

>  	case -EPROBE_DEFER:
>  		goto err;
>  	}
> 

-- 
Péter