On 16.03.2024 01:43, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.03.2024 23:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Simone Ballarin wrote: >>>> On 11/03/24 14:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.03.2024 13:00, Simone Ballarin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/03/24 11:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 11.03.2024 09:59, Simone Ballarin wrote: >>>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/hypercall.h >>>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/hypercall.h >>>>>>>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >>>>>>>> +/* SAF-5-safe direct inclusion guard before */ >>>>>>>> #ifndef __XEN_HYPERCALL_H__ >>>>>>>> #error "asm/hypercall.h should not be included directly - include >>>>>>>> xen/hypercall.h instead" >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hypercall.h >>>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hypercall.h >>>>>>>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ >>>>>>>> * asm-x86/hypercall.h >>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>> +/* SAF-5-safe direct inclusion guard before */ >>>>>>>> #ifndef __XEN_HYPERCALL_H__ >>>>>>>> #error "asm/hypercall.h should not be included directly - include >>>>>>>> xen/hypercall.h instead" >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Iirc it was said that this way checking for correct guards is suppressed >>>>>>> altogether in Eclair, which is not what we want. Can you clarify this, >>>>>>> please? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My first change was moving this check inside the guard. >>>>>> You commented my patch saying that this would be an error because someone >>>>>> can >>>>>> include it directly if it has already been included indirectly. >>>>>> I replied telling that this was the case also before the change. >>>>>> You agreed with me, and we decided that the correct thing would be fixing >>>>>> the >>>>>> check and not apply my temporary change to address the finding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering that the code should be amended, a SAF deviation seems to me >>>>>> the most appropriate way for suppressing these findings. >>>>> >>>>> Since I don't feel your reply addresses my question, asking differently: >>>>> With >>>>> your change in place, will failure to have proper guards (later) in these >>>>> headers still be reported by Eclair? >>>> >>>> No, if you put something between the check and the guard, >>>> no violation will be reported. >>> >>> From this email exchange I cannot under if Jan is OK with this patch or >>> not. >> >> Whether I'm okay(ish) with the patch here depends on our position towards >> the lost checking in Eclair mentioned above. To me it still looks relevant >> that checking for a guard occurs, even if that isn't first in a file for >> some specific reason. > > More checking is better than less checking, but if we cannot find a > simple and actionable way forward on this violation, deviating it is > still a big improvement because it allows us to enable the ECLAIR Dir > 4.10 checks in xen.git overall (which again goes back to more checking > is better than less checking).
You have a point here. I think though that at the very least the lost checking opportunity wants calling out quite explicitly. > Do you have a simple alternative suggestion? If not, this is still an > improvement. I don't know the inner workings of Eclair. Without that I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make alternative suggestions. Jan
