linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: 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]

Message-ID: <84512689-d898-e670-075d-509bbff20423@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:26:58 +0200
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     Don Brace <don.brace@...rosemi.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions <aacraid@...rosemi.com>,
        Willem Riede <osst@...de.org>,
        Kai Mäkisara <Kai.Makisara@...umbus.fi>,
        esc.storagedev@...rosemi.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, osst-users@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi Martin,

On 10/11/18 4:47 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Hi Gustavo,
> 
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> I'm not entirely convinced that all these identified fall through cases
> are intentional. From a quick glance, some of them look like bugs...
> 

I took a second look at this and, certainly, the one below looks more like a
bug. The rest seem to be false positives.

Also, notice that this code has been there since 2005. So, that's why I was
inclined to think that all of them are false positives.

>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ips.c b/drivers/scsi/ips.c
>> index bd6ac6b..8e1c45d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ips.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ips.c
>> @@ -3485,6 +3485,7 @@ ips_send_cmd(ips_ha_t * ha, ips_scb_t * scb)
>>  
>>  		case START_STOP:
>>  			scb->scsi_cmd->result = DID_OK << 16;
>> +			/* fall through */

If you confirm this is an actual bug, I can send a separate fix.

>>  
>>  		case TEST_UNIT_READY:
>>  		case INQUIRY:
> 

Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo