Re: [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] automation/eclair: add deviation for MISRA C:2012 Rule 17.1

[Simone Ballarin]

On 22/03/24 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 22.03.2024 14:44, Simone Ballarin wrote:

On 22/03/24 10:44, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 22.03.2024 09:46, Simone Ballarin wrote:

--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -382,6 +382,32 @@ explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is 
present."
   -config=MC3R1.R16.6,switch_clauses+={deliberate, "default(0)"}
   -doc_end

+#

+# Series 17.
+#
+
+-doc_begin="printf()-like functions are allowed to use the variadic features 
provided by stdarg.h."
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(debugtrace_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dt_dprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(guest_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(panic)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(gdprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(snprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(scnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(xasprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(mm_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dbgp_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(elf_call_log_callback)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vsnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vscnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(xvasprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vprintk_common)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(guest_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R17.1,macros+={hide , "^va_(arg|start|copy|end)$"}
+-doc_end

Repeating v1 comments which weren't addressed>
Is there a reason xyzprintk() are all listed individually? Surely if
we'd introduce a new flavor, we'd want that excluded too.

{,g}dprintk() in neither of their incarnation use any of the va_*

items listed. Why do they need mentioning here?

What do you mean with "xyzprintk()"? Maybe you mean a regex-based
deviation using ".*printk\(.*\)"?

Regex or globbing, whatever is available.

That would unnecessarily deviate "{,g}dprintk()" as you said.

Depends on how the regex would be written.

Moreover, to cover also "vprintk_common", we would instead need something like
"^.*printk.*\(.*\)$".

Or simply accept that such outliers need listing individually. That
would imo still be better than a dozen entries.

Ok, I will propose a patch using "^.*printk\(.*\)$"

I'm fine in using "^.*printk.*\(.*\)$", I just preferred the individual
whitelisting to avoid unwanted exclusions.

P.S:
using regex I cannot match only the name, but I have to match
the entire signature.

Interesting. Is that a tool limitation?

Why limitation? I wrote the P.S. just to motivate why I've added the "\(.*\)".

"name(abc)&&kind(function)" will simply become "^abc\(.*\)$".

Please note that I've removed "kind(function)" since the regex can only
match functions.

Jan

--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.

Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)