linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] selinux: remove an unreachable line

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: <1259869127.22783.70.camel@Joe-Laptop.home>
Date:	Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:38:47 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] selinux: remove an unreachable line

On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 16:39 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 04:31:36PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> Joe Perches wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 02:41 -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> >>>> This line is unreachable, remove it.
> >>> []
> >>>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
> >>>> index b5407f1..a2f1034 100644
> >>>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
> >>>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
> >>>> @@ -544,7 +544,6 @@ int mls_compute_sid(struct context *scontext,
> >>>>  	default:
> >>>>  		return -EINVAL;
> >>>>  	}
> >>>> -	return -EINVAL;
> >>>>  }
> >>> I think it's better to remove the default case.
> >>>
> >> This is totally a personal taste, I think.
> >> Either is OK. James, any comments?
> > 
> > I think the last unreachable return might also stop certain
> > versions of gcc complaining about control reaching the end of
> > a non void function.
> 
> Hmm, aren't those version of gcc buggy? Here we have return values
> in all cases of 'switch', it shouldn't complain...

Various versions of gcc do complain.

It's also a bit counter-expectation to
the reader to find no return at the end
of a non-void function.

As a reader, you then have to scan the
cases to find the default: case which
isn't necessarily at the end.

If it is a simple
	default:
		return foo;

I think it less jarring to omit
default from the switch statement
and use
	return foo;
}

at the function exit.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/