Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

Nick Desaulniers
2020-11-24T01:33:31Z

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.
>
> FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6qKAO8gxSp=Kr_CQ@mail.gmail.com/

So looks like the bulk of these are:
switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
break;
}

I have a patch that fixes those up for clang:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895

There's 3 other cases that don't quite match between GCC and Clang I
observe in the kernel:
switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
goto y;
}
y:;

switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
return;
}

switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
;
}

Based on your link, and Nathan's comment on my patch, maybe Clang
should continue to warn for the above (at least the `default: return;`
case) and GCC should change? While the last case looks harmless,
there were only 1 or 2 across the tree in my limited configuration
testing; I really think we should just add `break`s for those.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers