bpf: verifier: add break statement in switch
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 1/1 bpf: verifier: add break statement in switch
Notice that in this case, it's much clearer to explicitly add a break rather than letting the code to fall through. It also avoid potential future fall-through warnings[1].
This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1087056/
--- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +1 -0
@@ -5365,6 +5365,7 @@ 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 :case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK :case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS :
Signature · 1 line
2.21.0
Quoted 5 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Notice that in this case, it's much clearer to explicitly add a break rather than letting the code to fall through. It also avoid potential future fall-through warnings[1].
Quoted 7 lines
This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1087056/
Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>---
Quoted 18 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)kernel/bpf/verifier.c +1
-1@@ -5365,6 +5365,7 @@ 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 :case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK :case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS : --2.21.0
Quoted 11 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Notice that in this case, it's much clearer to explicitly add a break rather than letting the code to fall through. It also avoid potential future fall-through warnings[1].
This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1087056/
Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
this type of changes are not suitable for bpf tree. Pls submit both as single patch to bpf-next