[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: docs/misra: add R21.6 R21.14 R21.15 R21.16
+Bugseng On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 17/04/2024 20:10, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > On 16/04/2024 20:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > Also add two specific project-wide deviations for R21.6 and R21.15. > > > > > > In general, I am fine with add the two rules. However... > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > > > > index 32b02905d1..9123c8edb5 100644 > > > > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > > > > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > > > > @@ -387,6 +387,22 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > > > > of the Rule due to uses of this macro. > > > > - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > > > > + * - R21.6 > > > > + - The use of snprintf() and vsnprintf() is justifiable as, despite > > > > + the fact that such functions have the same names of the > > > > + corresponding standard library functions, each configuration of > > > > + Xen has a unique implementation for them; the code implementing > > > > + such functions is subject to the analysis, so that any undefined > > > > + or unspecified behavior associated to them falls under the > > > > + responsibility of other MISRA guidelines > > > > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > > > > > ... this implies that ECLAIR should be modified. But this is not happening > > > in > > > this patch. Looking at history, we tend to keep deviations.rst in sync > > > with > > > ECLAIR, so I think it should be updated here too. > > > > That is true but I am not very familiar with Eclair config language so > > it is better if that is done by the Bugseng team. I can merge their > > patch into this one or vice versa or they could be committed separately > > (keep in mind that the rule is not enabled in the ECLAIR scan so from a > > Gitlab-CI point of view we don't require the change to the ECLAIR config > > although it makes sense). I am happy either way. > > My comment was not about Gitlab CI. It was more about consistency between the > file and ECLAIR. I think they should be kept in sync because it explain how > the tool doing the scanning behave. > > My preference is to either split and only commit the rules now or wait for the > ECLAIR change to happen. Understood. Maybe the Bugseng team can provide the corresponding ECLAIR/deviations.ecl changes
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |