From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/x86: Annotate deliberate fallthrough
 cases from XSA-154
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:05:02 +0000
Message-ID: <56C5CF8E.9080200@citrix.com>
References: <1455798403-21953-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<56C5D77902000078000D3B36@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <56C5D77902000078000D3B36@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 18/02/16 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.02.16 at 13:26, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Coverity objects otherwise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> index a05edc3..0bff7dd 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> @@ -924,10 +924,15 @@ get_page_from_l1e(
>>              {
>>              case 0:
>>                  break;
>> +
>>              case 1:
>>                  if ( is_hardware_domain(l1e_owner) )
>> +                {
>> +                    /* Fallthrough. */
>>              case -1:
>>                      return 0;
>> +                }
>> +                /* Fallthrough. */
>>              default:
> This second fall-through is actually a bug (luckily noticable only
> on debug builds).
>
> I'll commit the patch suitably adjusted, albeit I have a hard time
> seeing how
>
>             case 1:
>                 if ( is_hardware_domain(l1e_owner) )
>             case -1:
>
> cannot be seen as obviously deliberate.

Many C programmers are not aware that it is even valid syntax.

The point of the MISSING_BREAK check is to second guess what the
programmer has actually written.

>  Or did Coverity perhaps
> only complain about the second, indeed buggy one?

It only complained about the first.  The second is a misaligned
unconditional return when considered in isolation.

~Andrew