linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] reboot: add missing break to switch statement for LINUX_REBOOT_CMD

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]

Message-ID: <750452a3-ac8a-4af5-849f-3db83158a1e5@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:47:00 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Enno Onneken <ennoonneken@...look.de>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reboot: add missing break to switch statement for
 LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 04:24:45PM +0200, Enno Onneken wrote:
> All switch-cases should be isolated from each other due to shutting
> down/rebooting the kernel in different ways.
> In order to fully isolate this case (like all the others are), this patch
> adds a "break;" after do_exit(0); .

This patch is obviously harmless but the commit message is not clear what the
motivation is.  "missing break" in the subject is misleading.

do_exit() is annotated as a __noreturn function so it's already "fully
isolated".  It sounds like you are using a tool which doesn't understand the
no return attributes.  Better to fix that instead.

> 
> Fixes: 15d94b82565e ("reboot: move shutdown/reboot related functions to kernel/reboot.c")

This isn't a bugfix so a Fixes tag isn't appropriate.

regards,
dan carpenter