On 20/02/24 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.02.2024 09:16, Federico Serafini wrote:
On 19/02/24 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.02.2024 15:59, Federico Serafini wrote:
On 19/02/24 14:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.02.2024 14:24, Federico Serafini wrote:
Update ECLAIR configuration to consider safe switch clauses ending
with __{get,put}_user_bad().
Update docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <[email protected]>
As mentioned I'm not happy with this, not the least because of it being
unclear why these two would be deviated, when there's no sign of a
similar deviation for, say, __bad_atomic_size(). Imo this approach
doesn't scale, and that's already leaving aside that the purpose of
identically named (pseudo-)helpers could differ between architectures,
thus putting under question ...
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -368,6 +368,10 @@ safe."
-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
"any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/BUG\\(\\);/))))"}
-doc_end
+-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with constructs \"__get_user_bad()\" and \"__put_user_bad()\" are safe: they denote an unreachable program point."
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
"any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/__(put|get)_user_bad\\(\\);/))))"}
+-doc_end
... the global scope of such a deviation. While it may not be a good idea,
even within an arch such (pseudo-)helpers could be used for multiple
distinct purposes.
Would you agree with adding the missing break statement after
the uses of __{put,get}_user_bad() (as it is already happening for
uses of __bad_atomic_size())?
I probably wouldn't mind that (despite being a little pointless).
Perhaps declaring them as noreturn would also help?
Yes, it will help.
Is there any reason to have long as __get_user_bad()'s return value?
It would be nicer to declare it as a void function and then add the
noreturn attribute.
That's a historical leftover, which can be changed. Xen originally
derived quite a bit of code from Linux. If you go look at Linux 2.6.16,
you'll find why it was declared that way.
Thank you, I'll send a v2.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
