Re: [PATCH] Add more rules to docs/misra/rules.rst

From: Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@arm.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"george.dunlap@citrix.com" <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
	"andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"roger.pau@citrix.com" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
	Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
	"julien@xen.org" <julien@xen.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add more rules to docs/misra/rules.rst
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 09:32:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2733D8BE-CCA5-4322-BB9B-1D4318378525@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <03ce9f48-191e-b1b5-a3b2-8b769aa8feeb@suse.com>

> On 30 Jan 2023, at 07:33, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already followed by
>>> the community in most cases" which I assume was based on there being
>>> only very few violations that are presently reported. Now we've found
>>> the frame_table[] issue, I'm inclined to say that the statement was put
>>> there by mistake (due to that oversight).
>> 
>> cppcheck is unable to find violations; we know cppcheck has limitations
>> and that's OK.
>> 
>> Eclair is excellent and finds violations (including the frame_table[]
>> issue you mentioned), but currently it doesn't read configs from xen.git
>> and we cannot run a test to see if adding a couple of deviations for 2
>> macros removes most of the violations. If we want to use Eclair as a
>> reference (could be a good idea) then I think we need a better
>> integration. I'll talk to Roberto and see if we can arrange something
>> better.
>> 
>> I am writing this with the assumption that if I could show that, as an
>> example, adding 2 deviations reduces the Eclair violations down to less
>> than 10, then we could adopt the rule. Do you think that would be
>> acceptable in your opinion, as a process?
> 
> Hmm, to be quite honest: Not sure. Having noticed the oversight of the
> frame_table[] issue makes me wonder how much else may be missed in this
> same area (18.1, 18.2, and 18.3).

Hi Jan,

I think I recall the frame_table[] issue but I was looking into the eclair reports to
understand it better and I was unable to find it, do you recall where the tool was
complaining for the 18.2 related to the frame_table[]?
Any notes or link is appreciated, maybe we could speak with Roberto to understand
It better, because I checked with Coverity and I was unable to link findings of 18.2 with
the symbol frame_table[] (however I might be a bit lost in all the macros).

Thank you.

Cheers,
Luca

> 
> Jan