linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711282040500.2222@nanos>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:48:28 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This is what we want to add:
> 
> # Warn about missing switch break or fall-through comment.
> KBUILD_CFLAGS  += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)

Can this be made to ignore comments and only accept the proper annotation?

> > > I have no idea who came up with that brilliant idea of parsing comments in
> > > the code. It's so simple to make this parser completely fail that it's not
> > > even funny anymore.
> > > 
> 
> I don't get why someone would want to do that to himself. :/

Well, it's not intentional.

You add any comment and the parser thinks its correct. Or you typo the
thing and it fails to recognize.

Thanks,

	tglx