On 6/11/19 12:22 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> 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.
>
This patch applies cleanly to linux-next (tag next-20190611).
--
Gustavo
>>
>> 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
>>
