Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] xen/arm: justify or initialize conditionally uninitialized variables

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Nicola,

I am currently looking at the code to check if we can avoid some SAF-*. 
But I need some clarification on the usage.
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> @@ -2914,6 +2924,7 @@ static int __init make_vpl011_uart_node(struct 
> kernel_info *kinfo)
>       void *fdt = kinfo->fdt;
>       int res;
>       gic_interrupt_t intr;
This value will be passed to set_interrupt() which contains the 
following code:
__be32 *cells = interrupt;
[...]
dt_set_cells(&cells, ....);

Where  gic_interrupt_t is:

typedef __be32 gic_interrupt[3];

This is very similar to the pattern in ...

> +    /* SAF-1-safe MC3R1.R9.1*/
>       __be32 reg[GUEST_ROOT_ADDRESS_CELLS + GUEST_ROOT_SIZE_CELLS];
>       __be32 *cells;
>       struct domain *d = kinfo->d;
> @@ -3435,6 +3446,7 @@ static void __init initrd_load(struct kernel_info *kinfo)
>       paddr_t paddr, len;
>       int node;
>       int res;
> +    /* SAF-1-safe MC3R1.R9.1 */
>       __be32 val[2];
... here.

cellp = (__be32 *)val;
dt_set_cell(&cellp, ..., load_addr);

Would you be able to explain why Eclair is complaining for this one but 
not the previous one?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall