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.seraf...@bugseng.com>
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)
