[XEN PATCH v2 6/7] xen/arm: vcpreg: address violation of MISRA C Rule 2.1

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is no path that reaches the call to 'advance_pc', thus violating MISRA C
Rule 2.1.
A call to ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is added after the switch, despite this being
useful to detect errors only in debug builds; if that marker is ever reached,
a domain crash is triggered, as a defensive coding measure.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
The code changes (including the comment) were made by Julien in [1]; I added the
commit text and all other informations.

All the switch clauses, when expanded, end with a return statement
and the default clause has an unconditional return, therefore
advance_pc() is never reached.

However, it has been deemed safer to crash the domain if the switch is ever
exited.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2312151232580.3175268@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop/T/#maa91d8025532455a6317119a1e4affa00a99e1ce
---
 xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c b/xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c
index 39aeda9dab62..a2d050070473 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c
@@ -707,8 +707,14 @@ void do_cp10(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, const union hsr 
hsr)
         inject_undef_exception(regs, hsr);
         return;
     }
-
-    advance_pc(regs, hsr);
+    
+    /*
+     * All the cases in the switch should return. If this is not the
+     * case, then something went wrong and it is best to crash the
+     * domain.
+     */
+    ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
+    domain_crash(current->domain);
 }
 
 void do_cp(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, const union hsr hsr)
-- 
2.34.1