linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 000/141] 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2b5803f8d4fd9764c1b6f5b32e7a9716fa64024c.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:29:57 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        fthain@...egraphics.com.au,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 18:05 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> (minus all of these lists, except LKML, CBL, and ACPI)
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:32:51 -0800 Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no
> > change
> > > > > to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> > > > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6qKAO8gxSp=Kr_CQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > 
> > > 
> > > So looks like the bulk of these are:
> > > switch (x) {
> > >   case 0:
> > >     ++x;
> > >   default:
> > >     break;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > I have a patch that fixes those up for clang:
> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895

Pity.  It's a good warning.  gcc not warning is a mistake in my view.