netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: 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: <20190214230756.GR10129@piout.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:07:56 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com wrote:
> >>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> >>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>>     if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
> >>>>        ^
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
> >>>>    case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >>>>    ^~~~
> >>>>
> >>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> >>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
> >>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
> >>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
> >>>> is expecting to find.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   drivers/net/can/at91_can.c                    | 6 ++++--
> >>>
> >>> For this one:
> >>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks, Nicolas.
> >>
> > 
> > I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
> > 
> 
> It wasn't intentional.
> 
> >> Dave:
> >>
> >> I wonder if you can take this patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Gustavo
> >>
> >>>>   drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
> >>>>   drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c                 | 3 ++-
> >>>>   drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c       | 2 +-
> >>>>   4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> >>>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> >>>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> >>>>   				CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> >>>>   				CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> >>>>   		}
> >>>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
> >>>> +		/* fall through */
> >>>> +	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >>>>   		/*
> >>>>   		 * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> >>>>   		 * to  : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> >>>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> >>>>   		netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> >>>>   		cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> >>>>   		cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> >>>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
> > 
> > Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
> 
> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
> 
> > is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
> > wrong.
> > 
> > Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> > recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> > tested with gcc 8.2).
> > 
> 
> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case.  Notice that the
> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
> 

Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com