Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKb-0H+smRAW6ngQKDZ-PbTThhMwhmu34iB8vjTa-4H8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:34:13 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...m.net>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Martin Sebor <msebor@...il.com>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Compiler Attributes: add support for __fallthrough
 (gcc >= 7.1)

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:27 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 07:14:13PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> > From the GCC manual:
>> >
>> >   fallthrough
>> >
>> >     The fallthrough attribute with a null statement serves as a
>> >     fallthrough statement. It hints to the compiler that a statement
>> >     that falls through to another case label, or user-defined label
>> >     in a switch statement is intentional and thus the -Wimplicit-fallthrough
>> >     warning must not trigger. The fallthrough attribute may appear
>> >     at most once in each attribute list, and may not be mixed with
>> >     other attributes. It can only be used in a switch statement
>> >     (the compiler will issue an error otherwise), after a preceding
>> >     statement and before a logically succeeding case label,
>> >     or user-defined label.
>> >
>> >   https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html

Please CC Gustavo on these kinds of things -- he's been driving the
bulk of the fall through coverage.

>> Do we know if coverity understands the fallthrough attribute?  One of
>> the reasons why I started using /* fallthrough */ is because it kept
>> Coverity happy.
>
> If Coverity is like gcc, they should be doing both (i.e. I see the
> comment parsing as an "extra" that gcc did, but the "basic stuff" is
> the attribute -- and I would guess it is way easier for them to
> support than the comment parsing).
>
> But I cannot test it myself :-( Someone, please?
>
> However, if I understood Greg correctly in his reply to the cover
> letter, he replied that Coverity knows about it (?).
>
>>
>> If the conversion from /* fallthrough */ to the __fallthrough__
>> attribute means that we start gethting a lot of Coverity warnings,
>> that would be unfortunate.  OTOH, if this is getting standardized,
>> maybe we can get Coverity to understand this attribute?
>
> Indeed! That would be the best for everyone, including Coverity customers.

We need to make sure the static analyzers are happy with either
method. Additionally, when was -Wimplicit-fallthrough added to GCC? If
it was added _before_ the attribute, we need to continue using the
comment style otherwise we lose coverage even with gcc itself.
Additionally, does Clang support this attribute (it supports
-Wimplicit-fallthrough).

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists