[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 1/4] xen: introduce SYMBOL
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, 12:29 Stefano Stabellini, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 10.01.19 at 03:40, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, 18:43 Stefano Stabellini, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Introduce a macro, SYMBOL, which is similar to RELOC_HIDE, but it is
> > >> meant to be used everywhere symbols such as _stext and _etext are used
> > >> in the code. It can take an array type as a parameter, and it returns
> > >> the same type.
> > >>
> > >> SYMBOL is needed when accessing symbols such as _stext and _etext
> > >> because the C standard forbids for both comparisons and substraction
> > >> (see C Standard, 6.5.6 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011] and [1]) between pointers
> > >> pointing to different objects. _stext, _etext, etc. are all pointers to
> > >> different objects from ANCI C point of view.
> > >>
> > >
> > > This does not make sense because you still return a pointer and therefore
> > > the undefined behavior is still present.
> > >
> > > I really don't believe this patch is going to make the MISRA tool happy.
> >
> > Well, till now I've been assuming that no version of this series was
> > posted without being certain the changes achieve the goal (of
> > making that tool happy).
>
> No, Jan: unfortunately we cannot re-run the scanning tool against any
> version of Xen we wish to :-(
>
> We cannot know in advance if a set of changes will make the tool happy
> or not.
>
> If I knew that SYMBOL returning the native point type as in v6 is
> sufficient to make the tool happy, I wouldn't be here arguing. We cannot
> know for sure until we commit the changes, then we ask PRQA to re-scan
> against a more recent version of Xen. It is an heavy process and for
> this reason I preferred the safer of the two approaches.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I would rather get something in, even if insufficient, than
> nothing. So I'll address all your comments based on returning the
> pointer type, and submit a new version. The bothersome changes are the
> ones to the call sites, and I would like to get those in no matter the
> implementation of SYMBOL.
>
>
> It is not only insufficient but wrong when you read the commit message. You also were not convinced about this approach.
>
> I understand that we need to commit so we can get the result from the PRQA tool. However, we should have talked with people
> knowing MISRA to understand whether it could work.
>
> You also didn't address my point on why Linux needs to go through unsigned long.
>
> So I don't think it is right to merge it without more ground.
>
> On that basis:
>
> Nacked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
Hi Julien,
I well understanding your thinking, I am not happy with this approach.
However, changing all the call sites to use SYMBOL, even if SYMBOL does
not do what you and I think it should, is still a valuable change to
have:
1) it clearly highlight all the related violations
2) it is a burdensome set of changes to maintain off-tree which will be
difficult to rebase and will bitrot quickly
3) it will be simple to change the implementation of SYMBOL afterwards
as needed
4) regardless of MISRA, we still have a problem with gcc and symbols
like _start and _end, see the comment on top of RELOC_HIDE in linux
(include/linux/compiler-gcc.h)
In fact, even not caring about C compliance, this series is still an
improvement, a fix to a potential compiler problem. On that basis alone,
I think it is a bad decision not to merge this series.
From the different reading (see link in one of my previous), I don't believe it will help the compiler. I would be interested to know the rationale you think otherwise.
I am also worried that any change in the definition will require to investigate all the callsite. This is a call for missing one.
So it still feels to me we are rushing the series.
To answer your other questions: yes, we need more information about this
compliance issue and MISRA, this is a good reason for committing the
series so that we can have the tool a re-scan. It is also a great way
to show the problem to a MISRA expert not familiar with Xen: "look at
the way SYMBOL is used through the code..."
I don't know why Linux is using unsigned long, I looked at the commit
messages and comments but there isn't an explanation. However, it just
makes sense to me. That is how I would have implemented the solution as
well. Jan's approach looks very much like a partial workaround to me.
On one of my previous e-mail I provided a URL giving a bit more explanation on the problem.
In conclusion, I still agree with you and disagree with Jan, but it
would be good to make progress regardless:
- I think a series introducing the usage of SYMBOL through the code
should go in 4.12 regardless of the implementation of SYMBOL
- even the bad implementation of SYMBOL would still help with the
potential gcc problems mentioned by Linux, if not with certifications
See above. I clearly don't believe it is solving anything. It will actually make any change of SYMBOL more difficult if you decide to switch to unsigned long.
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
