linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] fallthrough fixes for Clang for 5.14-rc2

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjGfJPROMSdC8n1xnvyQzxWiz2pXV9E6OE_vpti7rCdZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:26:27 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fallthrough fixes for Clang for 5.14-rc2

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:18 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hence why I suggested -Wimplicit-fallthrough-unreachable.

As long as it's a warning that the kernel would never set, that's fine.

I think it's an entirely bogus warning, but at some point as long as
we don't need to care about it, we can happily ignore it.

Or just continue to say "clang is spewing bogus warnings, don't use it".

But the sane naming for that warning should certainly not have
anything at all to do with "implicit". Quite the reverse. The warning
is about an  _explicit_ fallthrough being unreachable, and as such
thje warning name should reflect that.

So make it just "-Wfallthrough-unreachable" (maybe even
"-Wexplicit-..") to allow people who want that pointless warning to
enable it.

               Linus