linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: isp1760-hcd: Fix fall-through annotations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 May 2019 11:13:44 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Arvid Brodin <arvid.brodin@...a.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: isp1760-hcd: Fix fall-through annotations



On 5/1/19 11:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:39:34AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> This patch fixes the following warning:
>>
>> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c: In function ‘collect_qtds’:
>> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:788:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>       mem_reads8(hcd->regs, qtd->payload_addr,
>>       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>         qtd->data_buffer,
>>         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>         qtd->actual_length);
>>         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:792:5: note: here
>>      case OUT_PID:
>>      ^~~~
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comments are modified
>> in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>> Notice that this code has been out there since 2011, and who
>> introduced the question mark was the original developer.
>>
>> It'd be good if someone can confirm that the fall-through
>> has been intentional all this time.
> 
> Yes, it looks intentional.  Messy, and as no one has complained since
> 2011, let's leave it alone, I'll queue this up.
> 

Great.

Thanks, Greg.
--
Gustavo