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

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:  
> > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > > > > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> > > > > add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just
> > > > > letting the code fall through to the next case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this
> > > > > change[1] is meant to be reverted at some point. So, this patch helps
> > > > > to move in that direction.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Something important to mention is that there is currently a 
> > > > > discrepancy
> > > > > between GCC and Clang when dealing with switch fall-through to empty 
> > > > > case
> > > > > statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return
> > > > > statement[2][3][4].  
> > > > 
> > > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before?
> > > > 
> > > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped
> > > > find?
> > > > 
> > > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could
> > > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?!  
> > > 
> > > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think
> > > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn't impact the machine
> > > code, since the compiler will happily optimize away any behavioral
> > > redundancy.
> > 
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

This is a fallthrough to a return and not to a break.  That should
trigger a warning.  The fallthrough to a break should not generate a
warning.

The bug we're trying to fix is "missing break statement" but if the
result of the bug is "we hit a break statement" then now we're just
talking about style.  GCC should limit itself to warning about
potentially buggy code.

regards,
dan carpenter