netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] wireless: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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: <f0a240e2-cae7-07f4-757f-a8606199d29e@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:59:23 +0200
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wireless: mark expected switch fall-throughs


On 10/23/18 9:01 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 02:13 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This code was not tested and GCC 7.2.0 was used to compile it.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to make this any clearer: I'm not applying patches
> like that where you've invested no effort whatsoever on verifying that
> they're correct.
> 

How do you suggest me to verify that every part is correct in this type
of patches?

Thanks
--
Gustavo