[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] misra: consider conversion from UL or (void*) to function pointer as safe


  • To: Dmytro Prokopchuk1 <dmytro_prokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:39:01 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:39:12 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 22.08.2025 18:34, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
> On 8/21/25 11:25, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2025-08-21 10:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.08.2025 20:55, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
>>>> Rule 11.1 states as following: "Conversions shall not be performed
>>>> between a pointer to a function and any other type."
>>>>
>>>> The conversion from unsigned long or (void *) to a function pointer
>>>> is safe in Xen because the architectures it supports (e.g., x86 and
>>>> ARM) guarantee compatible representations between these types.
>>>
>>> I think we need to be as precise as possible here. The architectures
>>> guarantee nothing, they only offer necessary fundamentals. In the
>>> Windows x86 ABI, for example, you can't convert pointers to/from longs
>>> without losing data. What we build upon is what respective ABIs say,
>>> possibly in combination of implementation specifics left to compilers.
>>>
>>
>> +1, a mention of the compilers and targets this deviation relies upon is 
>> needed.
> 
> Maybe with this wording:
> 
> This deviation is based on the guarantees provided by the specific ABIs
> (e.g., ARM AAPCS) and compilers (e.g., GCC) supported in Xen. These ABIs
> guarantee compatible representations for 'void *', 'unsigned long' and
> function pointers for the supported target platforms. This behavior is
> architecture-specific and may not be portable outside of supported
> environments.

Reads okay to me; for Arm64 I can only assume the psABI indeed makes this
guarantee.

>>>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
>>>> @@ -370,6 +370,16 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
>>>>         to store it.
>>>>       - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
>>>>
>>>> +   * - R11.1
>>>> +     - The conversion from unsigned long or (void \*) to a function 
>>>> pointer does
>>>> +       not lose any information or violate type safety assumptions 
>>>> if unsigned
>>>> +       long or (void \*) type is guaranteed to be the same bit size 
>>>> as a
>>>> +       function pointer. This ensures that the function pointer can 
>>>> be fully
>>>> +       represented without truncation or corruption. The macro 
>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON is
>>>> +       integrated into xen/common/version.c to confirm conversion 
>>>> compatibility
>>>> +       across all target platforms.
>>>> +     - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
>>>
>>> Why the escaping of * here, when ...
>>>
>>>> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
>>>> @@ -431,7 +431,13 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>>>>       - All conversions to integer types are permitted if the 
>>>> destination
>>>>         type has enough bits to hold the entire value. Conversions to 
>>>> bool
>>>>         and void* are permitted. Conversions from 'void noreturn (*) 
>>>> (...)'
>>>> -       to 'void (*)(...)' are permitted.
>>>> +       to 'void (*)(...)' are permitted. Conversions from unsigned 
>>>> long or
>>>> +       (void \*) to a function pointer are permitted if the source 
>>>> type has
>>>> +       enough bits to restore function pointer without truncation or 
>>>> corruption.
>>>> +       Example::
>>>> +
>>>> +           unsigned long func_addr = (unsigned long)&some_function;
>>>> +           void (*restored_func)(void) = (void (*)(void))func_addr;
>>>
>>> ... context here suggests they work fine un-escaped, and you even add 
>>> some un-
>>> escaped instances as well. Perhaps I'm simply unaware of some 
>>> peculiarity?
>>>
>>
>> This is a literal rst block, while the other is not (* acts as a bullet 
>> point in rst iirc)
> 
> This is how "sphinx-build" tool interprets this.
> 1. * inside single quotes '' -> looks normal, e.g. ‘void (*)(…)’
> 2. * without quotes -> warning
> deviations.rst:369: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without 
> end-string. [docutils]
> 3. \* -> looks normal, e.g. (void *)
> 
> Because that we need such format: \*

Yet under "Example::" there's no quotation and no escaping. The one
"(void \*)" earlier in the text I'd suggest to replace by a quoted
form anyway, matching the rest of the text.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.