Re: [XEN PATCH] automation/eclair: add deviation for MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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())?

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)