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  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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:10:50 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Alan Cox <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,
        LKML <>,
        Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Quoting Thomas Gleixner <>:

> So I have to ask WHY this information was not in the changelog of the patch
> in question:
>    1) How it works
>    2) Why comments have been chosen over macros

I will add this info and send the patch again.

>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> It's not a reviewers job to chase that information down.
> While I can understand that the comments are intentional due to existing
> tools, I still prefer the macro/annotation. But I'm not religious about it
> when there is common consensus. :)


Thanks, Thomas.
Gustavo A. R. Silva

Powered by blists - more mailing lists