linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

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:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:18:23 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:23 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
> warnings by explicitly adding multiple fallthrough pseudo-keywords
> in places where the code is intended to fall through to the next
> case.

This is the first of the actual patches I've seen.
I think adding fallthough for these patches isn't the best option.

> diff --git a/fs/afs/cmservice.c b/fs/afs/cmservice.c
[]
> @@ -322,6 +322,8 @@ static int afs_deliver_cb_callback(struct afs_call *call)
>  			return ret;
>  
> 
>  		call->unmarshall++;
> +
> +		fallthrough;

My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;

>  	case 5:
>  		break;
>  	}

etc...