All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>,
	1000974@bugs.debian.org, Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>,
	xfslibs-dev@packages.debian.org, xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	gustavoars@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfsprogs-5.14.2 URGENT] libxfs: hide the drainbamaged fallthrough macro from xfslibs
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:15:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202112061204.404658A87@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211205174951.GQ8467@magnolia>

On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 09:49:51AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> 
> Back in mid-2021, Kees and Gustavo rammed into the kernel a bunch of
> static checker "improvements" that redefined '/* fallthrough */'
> comments for switch statements as a macro that virtualizes either that
> same comment, a do-while loop, or a compiler __attribute__.  This was
> necessary to work around the poor decision-making of the clang, gcc, and
> C language standard authors, who collectively came up with four mutually
> incompatible ways to document a lack of branching in a code flow.
> 
> Having received ZERO HELP porting this to userspace, Eric and I

Look, I know you don't like this feature, but claiming that you received
no help with it is just false. I explicitly offered to help with xfsprogs,
and even sent a first-attempt at a patch to do so[1], which looks very
similar to what you've got here, almost 6 months later. I even went
through and changed all the comments to an explicitly XFS-specific
macro when you made it clear you hated the statement-like "fallthrough"
macro name.

I continue to be baffled about this whole saga. We're all trying to help
make Linux better, and I went out of my way to help with xfsprogs too to
minimize the impact on you (since you said you wanted to have nothing to
do with it), yet Gustavo and I got continually flamed by yourself and
Dave, including even now in this very misleading commit log.

What is going on here?

-Kees

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105280915.9117D7C@keescook/

-- 
Kees Cook

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>,
	1000974@bugs.debian.org, Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>,
	xfslibs-dev@packages.debian.org, xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	gustavoars@kernel.org
Subject: Bug#1000974: [PATCH xfsprogs-5.14.2 URGENT] libxfs: hide the drainbamaged fallthrough macro from xfslibs
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:15:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202112061204.404658A87@keescook> (raw)
Message-ID: <20211206201503.t_7Jzb6Vj3kgd0ZEfmpvYORPTvDNdp1kped8LBa3rjQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211205174951.GQ8467@magnolia>

On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 09:49:51AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> 
> Back in mid-2021, Kees and Gustavo rammed into the kernel a bunch of
> static checker "improvements" that redefined '/* fallthrough */'
> comments for switch statements as a macro that virtualizes either that
> same comment, a do-while loop, or a compiler __attribute__.  This was
> necessary to work around the poor decision-making of the clang, gcc, and
> C language standard authors, who collectively came up with four mutually
> incompatible ways to document a lack of branching in a code flow.
> 
> Having received ZERO HELP porting this to userspace, Eric and I

Look, I know you don't like this feature, but claiming that you received
no help with it is just false. I explicitly offered to help with xfsprogs,
and even sent a first-attempt at a patch to do so[1], which looks very
similar to what you've got here, almost 6 months later. I even went
through and changed all the comments to an explicitly XFS-specific
macro when you made it clear you hated the statement-like "fallthrough"
macro name.

I continue to be baffled about this whole saga. We're all trying to help
make Linux better, and I went out of my way to help with xfsprogs too to
minimize the impact on you (since you said you wanted to have nothing to
do with it), yet Gustavo and I got continually flamed by yourself and
Dave, including even now in this very misleading commit log.

What is going on here?

-Kees

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105280915.9117D7C@keescook/

-- 
Kees Cook

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-12-06 20:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1ae1f860-e164-4e25-0c59-d4a3bb8587c2@debian.org>
     [not found] ` <163839370805.58768.6385074074873965943.reportbug@zbuz.infomaniak.ch>
     [not found]   ` <9b9bda73-9554-0c75-824d-f8d1b9b98e19@debian.org>
     [not found]     ` <7686ac7e-0df1-a98c-27ce-51dc5e46c55e@debian.org>
     [not found]       ` <c7ccff50-c177-7f96-2d99-2077f77374ad@debian.org>
2021-12-05 15:57         ` Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1000974: copy_move_algo.hpp:1083:10: error: ‘__fallthrough__’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘fallthrough’? Debian Bug Tracking System
2021-12-05 17:33         ` Thomas Goirand
2021-12-05 17:45           ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-12-05 17:49   ` [PATCH xfsprogs-5.14.2 URGENT] libxfs: hide the drainbamaged fallthrough macro from xfslibs Darrick J. Wong
2021-12-05 17:49     ` Bug#1000974: " Darrick J. Wong
2021-12-05 21:10     ` Dave Chinner
2021-12-05 21:10       ` Dave Chinner
2021-12-06 14:26     ` Eric Sandeen
2021-12-06 14:26       ` Bug#1000974: " Eric Sandeen
2021-12-06 20:15     ` Kees Cook [this message]
2021-12-06 20:15       ` Kees Cook
2021-12-05 19:00   ` Bug#1000974: Info received (Bug#1000974: copy_move_algo.hpp:1083:10: error: ‘__fallthrough__’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘fallthrough’?) Thomas Goirand
2021-12-07 12:36   ` Bug#1000974: marked as done (xfs/linux.h defines common word "fallthrough" breaking unrelated headers) Debian Bug Tracking System
2021-12-07 12:54   ` Debian Bug Tracking System

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=202112061204.404658A87@keescook \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=1000974@bugs.debian.org \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=gio@debian.org \
    --cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=xfslibs-dev@packages.debian.org \
    --cc=zigo@debian.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.