From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D10C4321A for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1ED206E0 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gjAPQJQh" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406858AbfFKSIJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:08:09 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:43488 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2406829AbfFKSIJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:08:09 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id z24so2442345qtj.10; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:08:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sDDXeskfmkhVSOYqH42jOLWDA0Vpzj5152gUAPbopKc=; b=gjAPQJQh5JYwgRA+PLgGch9BqhXKwD4pmlQFBzQr3EHgrz4jxWStM/Y7awrI1CUftG Q4m1ApltFabUdZJ0KRghLP8AFhPzODkHPQveT/xxQZQM+QEzkrLZmaltafHRgYzyaN0Y mTx67w113DmqbDylrQCFSSfjgbvytuU5ZMiihubCLlXR4+yw48u+DmsRbQGhIYPVMwhM La+vPFdwH+21lP1PAJ954YB58DnFtt0UlbvZdxAZTsz4i2CT5xl0M14PkmRabLaVIuVn pTgmipqwS+ibZ6aFKAIpTgfYI60dUE0cgrmgV4hrGfU4rlpA4zixbwMUbp3AXNH1hAnE PWpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sDDXeskfmkhVSOYqH42jOLWDA0Vpzj5152gUAPbopKc=; b=CoM1hbSUlMaXJNn2kLxhtPhrUmOaBxCQ7vGPslf9B8LvI8c4hzFo7atkJd0PpEU08E TXtuv4VwaXBkBH83gB+jxxTl5Mq8DlXqP3t6prySydvIbCv9fTzHKWRVUdZkEwNXQUp5 FzfqYp+cHTp3iczBuSZu9SrJErC/7WNnf1TVZLhU1XeaP0AUA3F4SP4SWf3RfT2PMz8a TLW/Y3Qnq3pRGFgx9q+4cHHegjadhVHdJIr/a/OLKNwCmDauFLcz9DLQL2Am5WI8VQBo ayHWXKE+orQaBc9cNdd6YZPD7oWpMOx/km6Z4IOXWVEpVLKFZzBuw3PQeNBINkkrL7PH MXVw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWI4fvO5MGtljK9DOe9nhnSXenpe1lWs3z2x0HoW2Xu9o280jez NRCJB/qyLFVqWgaUgBUz9y7e4WBPcyqQjdWKyg8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwOYnk52r/0lGOolOj7HyR0unUh3LoklSIswrk+LqydWlPNKuTeAXG8iyCxlGTqg36QPbC3khPydoiviuERjI4= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1087:: with SMTP id a7mr51876992qtj.141.1560276487946; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:08:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190611132811.GA27212@embeddedor> <4acbc6b9-e2aa-02d3-0e99-f641b67a3da3@embeddedor.com> <07450b27-5c09-2156-e6ee-921fef174c78@embeddedor.com> In-Reply-To: <07450b27-5c09-2156-e6ee-921fef174c78@embeddedor.com> From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:07:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: verifier: avoid fall-through warnings To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Lawrence Brakmo , Networking , bpf , open list , Kees Cook Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:41 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > On 6/11/19 12:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > > > On 6/11/19 12:22 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:05 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, this patch silence= s > >>> the following warning: > >> > >> Your patch doesn't apply cleanly to neither bpf nor bpf-next tree. > >> Could you please rebase and re-submit? Please also include which tree > >> (probably bpf-next) you are designating this patch to in subject > >> prefix. > >> > > > > This patch applies cleanly to linux-next (tag next-20190611). > > > > It seems that this commit hasn't been merged into bpf/bpf-next yet: > > 983695fa676568fc0fe5ddd995c7267aabc24632 > > -- > Gustavo > > >>> > >>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function =E2=80=98check_return_code=E2=80= =99: > >>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5509:6: warning: this statement may fall throug= h [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=3D] > >>> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type =3D=3D BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG= || > >>> ^ > >>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5512:2: note: here > >>> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB: > >>> ^~~~ > >>> > >>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3D3 > >>> > >>> Notice that it's much clearer to explicitly add breaks in each case > >>> (that actually contains some code), rather than letting the code to > >>> fall through. > >>> > >>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable > >>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > >>> --- > >>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > >>> index 1e9d10b32984..e9fc28991548 100644 > >>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > >>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > >>> @@ -5509,11 +5509,13 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verif= ier_env *env) > >>> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type =3D=3D BPF_CGROUP= _UDP4_RECVMSG || > >>> env->prog->expected_attach_type =3D=3D BPF_CGROUP= _UDP6_RECVMSG) > >>> range =3D tnum_range(1, 1); > >>> + break; So this part is in bpf tree only... > >>> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB: > >>> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type =3D=3D BPF_CGROUP= _INET_EGRESS) { > >>> range =3D tnum_range(0, 3); > >>> enforce_attach_type_range =3D tnum_range(2, 3= ); > >>> } > >>> + break; ... while this one is in bpf-next only. Maybe just split this into two separate patches, one targeting bpf tree and another for bpf-next tree? Unless you are willing to wait till bpf is merged into bpf-next. > >>> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK: > >>> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS: > >>> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_DEVICE: > >>> -- > >>> 2.21.0 > >>>