[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190619160708.GA30356@embeddedor>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:07:08 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: [PATCH][bpf-next] bpf: verifier: add a break statement in switch
Notice that in this case, it's much clearer to explicitly add a break
rather than letting the code to fall through. It also avoid potential
future fall-through warnings[1].
This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
-Wimplicit-fallthrough.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1087056/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 709ce4cef8ba..0b38cc917d21 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -6066,6 +6066,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
range = tnum_range(0, 3);
enforce_attach_type_range = tnum_range(2, 3);
}
+ break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK:
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR:
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS:
--
2.21.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists