linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: 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: <853a267c-807b-c613-6662-93730a0b4c33@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:48:50 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hey Boris,

On 1/26/19 3:52 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:09:50 -0600
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
>> index 933d1a629c51..d33e15dc4cdc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
>> @@ -2251,9 +2251,10 @@ static int __init ns_init_module(void)
>>  
>>  	switch (bbt) {
>>  	case 2:
>> -		 chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB;
>> +		chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB;
>> +		/* fall through */
>>  	case 1:
>> -		 chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH;
>> +		chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH;
> 
> You miss a '/* fall through */' here.
> 

Not really.  Notice that in this case the code falls through
to a break statement.

>>  	case 0:
>>  		break;
>>  	default:

Thanks
--
Gustavo