linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/5] Drivers: hv: kvp: Fix the recent regression caused by incorrect clean-up

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, 17 Oct 2018 17:56:15 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Stable@...r.kernel.org" <Stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/5] Drivers: hv: kvp: Fix the recent regression caused by
 incorrect clean-up

> From: devel <driverdev-devel-bounces@...uxdriverproject.org> On Behalf Of
> KY Srinivasan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 23:02
> > > --- a/drivers/hv/hv_kvp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_kvp.c
> > > @@ -353,6 +353,9 @@ static void process_ib_ipinfo(void *in_msg, void
> > *out_msg, int op)
> > >
> > >  		out->body.kvp_ip_val.dhcp_enabled = in-
> > >kvp_ip_val.dhcp_enabled;
> > >
> > > +		__attribute__ ((fallthrough));
> >
> > The comment should be sufficient for this, right?  I haven't seen many
> > uses of this attribute before, how common is it?
> 
> Yes; a common should be sufficient.

You all are right. 
Right now, I realized the gcc warning can also be suppressed by a simple line
of comment:

/* fallthrough */

It looks gcc treats this comment specially. 

If I add something more in the comment, like
/* add fallthrough */
, the warning can not be suppressed. :-)

I'll do a new version for KY.

Thank you all!

-- Dexuan