linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dp83640: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180811.112853.2039117789072425372.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     gustavo@...eddedor.com
Cc:     richardcochran@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dp83640: Mark expected switch
 fall-throughs

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:08:24 -0500

> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> Notice that in this particular case, I replaced the code comment at the
> top of the switch statement with a proper "fall through" annotation for
> each case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056542 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1339579 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1369526 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>

Applied, thanks.