On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:05 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, this patch silences
> 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.
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘check_return_code’:
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5509:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type == 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=3
>
> 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 <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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_verifier_env *env)
> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG ||
> env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG)
> range = tnum_range(1, 1);
> + break;
> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB:
> if (env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET_EGRESS) {
> range = tnum_range(0, 3);
> enforce_attach_type_range = tnum_range(2, 3);
> }
> + break;
> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK:
> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS:
> case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_DEVICE:
> --
> 2.21.0
>
