Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] coverity: Store the modelling file in the source tree.

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/01/14 17:24, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 01/24/2014 05:02 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 24/01/14 16:59, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 01/24/2014 04:57 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/14 16:52, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On 01/23/2014 03:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/01/14 15:13, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/23/2014 02:28 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> CC: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George:
>>>>>>>>       This is just documentation, and it would be nice to include
>>>>>>>> it as
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>       the 4.4 release.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      misc/coverity_model.c |   98
>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>      create mode 100644 misc/coverity_model.c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/misc/coverity_model.c b/misc/coverity_model.c
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 0000000..418d25e
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/misc/coverity_model.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
>>>>>>>> +/* Coverity Scan model
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * This is a modelling file for Coverity Scan. Modelling helps to
>>>>>>>> avoid false
>>>>>>>> + * positives.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * - A model file can't import any header files.
>>>>>>>> + * - Therefore only some built-in primitives like int, char and
>>>>>>>> void
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> + *   available but not NULL etc.
>>>>>>>> + * - Mode-ling doesn't need full structs and typedefs.
>>>>>>>> Rudimentary
>>>>>>>> structs
>>>>>>>> + *   and similar types are sufficient.
>>>>>>>> + * - An uninitialized local pointer is not an error. It signifies
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> + *   variable could be either NULL or have some data.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Coverity Scan doesn't pick up modifications automatically. The
>>>>>>>> model file
>>>>>>>> + * must be uploaded by an admin in the analysis.
>>>>>>> So this file isn't compiled; it's manually uploaded as part of the
>>>>>>> coverity scanning process; and could be provided out-of-band, but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> just convenient to put it in the tree, particularly if any of these
>>>>>>> things should change as things go forward.  (Hence comparing it to
>>>>>>> documentation.)  Is that right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     -George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct.  I believe internally Coverity compiles it (at least to an
>>>>>> AST), but that is completely opaque to users of Scan.
>>>>> Right; I have a hard time coming up with a compelling reason to wait
>>>>> for this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release-acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> The name of the file might be a bit confusing though, if people think
>>>>> it is supposed to be compliled... would it make sense maybe to
>>>>> call it
>>>>> ".txt", and include some instructions at the top with a line that
>>>>> says
>>>>> "---- cut here 8< ---" or something?
>>>>>
>>>>>    -George
>>>> Not really - Coverity uses the file extension to work out how to
>>>> interpret the modelling file.  ".c" is correct here, and will cause
>>>> smart text editors to apply proper syntax highlighting.
>>>>
>>>> Alternates are .cpp and .java, depending on the primary language of
>>>> the
>>>> project.
>>> Yes, I assumed that *coverity* needs it to be a .c.  But it doesn't
>>> need to be a .c file in the xen tree -- the instructions could say,
>>> "Place the text below into a file named coverity_model.c".
>>>
>>>   -George
>> This file was deliberately placed in a brand new directory, away from
>> any Makefiles which might try to compile it for this reason.
>>
>> Requiring users to post-process this file just to help prevent someone
>> from accidentally trying to compile it seems crazy IMO.  The worst that
>> happens is that someone tries to compile it and it fails to compile.
>
> Right, well a directory named "misc" probably won't remain empty for
> long. :-)  I'd prefer Ian's suggestion of misc/coverity/, or maybe
> just coverity/; but I'm not too particular about it.
>
> (And the consensus seems to be that .c shoud be fine, so I'll go along
> with that too.)
>
>  -George
>

I will send v6 moving it to misc/coverity/, and the result of the
copyright thread

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel