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

Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:30:11 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: mark expected switch fall-throughs



On 1/31/19 2:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

>>>
>>> This patch touches multiple LSMs and IMA.  As James has already picked
>>> up similar patches, which are in his next-general branch, perhaps he
>>> could also pick up an updated version of this one.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah.  I can either integrate your recent fix and respin if you don't mind,
>> or remove the fall-through comment and wait for James to take both patches,
>> yours and mine.
>>
>> What do you prefer?
> 
> Either way is fine.
> 

OK.  Well, I think in this case less is more, so I will integrate our changes
into a single patch.

Thanks for your feedback.
--
Gustavo