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 13:24:20 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        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 12:55 PM, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 11:56:12 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
>> On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever
>>> noticed.
> 
> I wonder if nobody uses it because any attempts to do so get an error? :)
> 
>> I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be
>> removed instead of 'fixed'?
> 
> I'm thinking that's a spot that needs a 'break;' added.
> 

Yep. And I think the patch to fix this should be tagged for stable.

So, it seems we have two options:

1. Revert commit 2cea1542859bc812f1ec51ea71c06e927e5b922e and then apply a fix with the break statement.

or

2. Apply a fix with the break statement and then backport the fix to stable.

am I correct?

Thanks
--
Gustavo