linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through

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:   Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:56:12 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     valdis.kletnieks@...edu, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through



On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
> 
>>> Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is supposed
>>> to catch.  Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do a
>>> whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL
>>> whether or not that case succeeded?
> 
>> Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this?
> 
>> Notice that this code has been there since 2010.
> 
> Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever
> noticed.
> 

I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be removed instead of 'fixed'?

Thanks
--
Gustavo