linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH][next] staging: r8188eu: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b5136c4b-5fe3-43e6-e893-fe74b2ba913f@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 16:32:03 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] staging: r8188eu: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang

On 8/18/2021 3:14 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Fix the following fallthrough warnings:
> 
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:1498:3: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1113:4: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1147:4: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1405:3: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> 
> This helps with the ongoing efforts to globally enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>

One small comment below.

> ---
>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c  | 1 +
>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c | 3 +++
>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> index 61b239651e1a..590a4572c23f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> @@ -1495,6 +1495,7 @@ unsigned int OnAssocRsp(struct adapter *padapter, struct recv_frame *precv_frame
>   			break;
>   		case _ERPINFO_IE_:
>   			ERP_IE_handler(padapter, pIE);
> +			break;
>   		default:
>   			break;
>   		}
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> index cddacf023fa6..e0ce2b796abe 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> @@ -1110,6 +1110,7 @@ unsigned int is_ap_in_tkip(struct adapter *padapter)
>   			case _RSN_IE_2_:
>   				if (!memcmp((pIE->data + 8), RSN_TKIP_CIPHER, 4))
>   					return true;
> +				break;
>   			default:
>   				break;
>   			}
> @@ -1144,6 +1145,7 @@ unsigned int should_forbid_n_rate(struct adapter *padapter)
>   				if  ((!memcmp((pIE->data + 8), RSN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP, 4))  ||
>   				     (!memcmp((pIE->data + 12), RSN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP, 4)))
>   					return false;
> +				break;
>   			default:
>   				break;
>   			}
> @@ -1401,6 +1403,7 @@ unsigned char check_assoc_AP(u8 *pframe, uint len)
>   			} else {
>   				break;
>   			}
> +			break;

Would it be better to just remove the else branch at the same time? As 
far as I can tell, there is no reason to have it.

>   
>   		default:
>   			break;
>