[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbVWSd=xVHdbM1R_u_V_HA7DESdF=gL9aH76VC25oq1dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:44:30 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: 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>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][bpf-next] bpf: verifier: add a break statement in switch
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:07 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> ---
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...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