netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:09:09 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang

On Sat, 2021-04-17 at 14:30 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 4/17/21 1:52 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix
> > > multiple warnings by replacing /* fall through */ comments with
> > > the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough; instead of letting the
> > > code fall through to the next case.
> > > 
> > > Notice that Clang doesn't recognize /* fall through */ comments as
> > > implicit fall-through markings.
> > > 
> > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Patch applied to wireless-drivers-next.git, thanks.
> > 
> > bf3365a856a1 rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > 
> 
> Sorry this junk patch should not have been applied.

I don't believe it's a junk patch.
I believe your characterization of it as such is flawed.

You don't like the style, that's fine, but:

Any code in the kernel should not be a unique style of your own choosing
when it could cause various compilers to emit unnecessary warnings.

Please remember the kernel code base is a formed by a community with a
nominally generally accepted style.  There is a real desire in that
community to both enable compiler warnings that might show defects and
simultaneously avoid unnecessary compiler warnings.

This particular change just avoids a possible compiler warning.