Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:15:53 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     hpa@zytor.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Shawn Landden <shawn@git.icu>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Add 'fallthrough' pseudo
 keyword for switch/case use
Message-ID: <201908151049.809B9AFBA9@keescook>
References: <e0dd3af448e38e342c1ac6e7c0c802696eb77fd6.1564549413.git.joe@perches.com>
 <1d2830aadbe9d8151728a7df5b88528fc72a0095.1564549413.git.joe@perches.com>
 <20190731171429.GA24222@amd>
 <ccc7fa72d0f83ddd62067092b105bd801479004b.camel@perches.com>
 <765E740C-4259-4835-A58D-432006628BAC@zytor.com>
 <20190731184832.GZ31381@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <201907311301.EC1D84F@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201907311301.EC1D84F@keescook>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:02:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:24:36AM -0700, hpa@zytor.com wrote:
> > > >> > +/*
> > > >> > + * Add the pseudo keyword 'fallthrough' so case statement blocks
> > > >> > + * must end with any of these keywords:
> > > >> > + *   break;
> > > >> > + *   fallthrough;
> > > >> > + *   goto <label>;
> > > >> > + *   return [expression];
> > > >> > + *
> > > >> > + *  gcc: >https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html#Statement-Attributes
> > > >> > + */
> > > >> > +#if __has_attribute(__fallthrough__)
> > > >> > +# define fallthrough                   __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> > > >> > +#else
> > > >> > +# define fallthrough                    do {} while (0)  /* fallthrough */
> > > >> > +#endif
> > > >> > +
> > 
> > > If the comments are stripped, how would the compiler see them to be
> > > able to issue a warning? I would guess that it is retained or replaced
> > > with some other magic token.
> > 
> > Everything that has the warning (GCC-7+/CLANG-9) has that attribute.
> 
> I'd like to make sure we don't regress Coverity most of all. If the
> recent updates to the Coverity scanner include support for the attribute
> now, then I'm all for it. :)

I want to recant my position on Coverity coverage being a requirement
here. While I was originally concerned about suddenly adding thousands
more warnings to Coverity scans (if it doesn't support the flag --
I should know soon), it's been made clear to me we're now at the point
where this is about to happen for Clang instead (since _it_ doesn't
support the comment-style marking and never will but is about to gain
C support[1] for the detection -- it only had C++ before).

With that out of the way, yes, let's do a mass conversion. As mentioned
before, I think "fallthrough;" should be used here (to match "break;").
Let's fork the C language. :)

-Kees

[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D64838

-- 
Kees Cook