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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:14:12 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
cc:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> 
> > 
> > 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. :)

    	       	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the important point. And there are people aside of me who prefer the
macro annotation.

Thanks,

	tglx