[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJUxHtFq0rBJ9FwzMcZDWnusPUauC_=MaOz7H0_PF25jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:55:51 +1300
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Edwin Zimmerman <edwin@...mainstreet.net>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
dev@...nvswitch.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:44 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Edwin Zimmerman <edwin@...mainstreet.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:03:47AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> >> Variables declared in a switch statement before any case statements
> >> >> cannot be initialized, so move all instances out of the switches.
> >> >> After this, future always-initialized stack variables will work
> >> >> and not throw warnings like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> fs/fcntl.c: In function ‘send_sigio_to_task’:
> >> >> fs/fcntl.c:738:13: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
> >> >> siginfo_t si;
> >> >> ^~
> >> >
> >> > That's a pain, so this means we can't have any new variables in { }
> >> > scope except for at the top of a function?
Just in case this wasn't clear: no, it's just the switch statement
before the first "case". I cannot imagine how bad it would be if we
couldn't have block-scoped variables! Heh. :)
> >> >
> >> > That's going to be a hard thing to keep from happening over time, as
> >> > this is valid C :(
> >>
> >> Not all valid C is meant to be used! ;)
> >
> > Very true. The other thing to keep in mind is the burden of enforcing
> > a prohibition on a valid C construct like this. It seems to me that
> > patch reviewers and maintainers have enough to do without forcing them
> > to watch for variable declarations in switch statements. Automating
> > this prohibition, should it be accepted, seems like a good idea to me.
>
> Considering that the treewide diffstat to fix this is:
>
> 18 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> and using the gcc plugin in question will trigger the switch-unreachable
> warning, I think we're good. There'll probably be the occasional
> declarations that pass through, and will get fixed afterwards.
Yeah, that was my thinking as well: it's a rare use, and we get a
warning when it comes up.
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
