|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [XEN PATCH v3 2/2] docs/misra: add deviations.rst to document additional deviations.
This file contains the deviation that are not marked by
a deviation comment, as specified in
docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Release-acked-by: Henry Wang <Henry.Wang@xxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v3:
- clarified an entry
---
docs/index.rst | 1 +
docs/misra/deviations.rst | 236 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
docs/misra/rules.rst | 2 +-
3 files changed, 238 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 docs/misra/deviations.rst
diff --git a/docs/index.rst b/docs/index.rst
index 2c47cfa999f2..f3f779f89ce5 100644
--- a/docs/index.rst
+++ b/docs/index.rst
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ Xen hypervisor code.
:maxdepth: 2
misra/rules
+ misra/deviations
Miscellanea
diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8511a189253b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
+
+MISRA C deviations for Xen
+==========================
+
+The following is the list of MISRA C:2012 deviations for the Xen codebase that
+are not covered by a `SAF-x-safe` or `SAF-x-false-positive-<tool>` comment, as
+specified in docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst; the lack of
+such comments is usually due to the excessive clutter they would bring to the
+codebase or the impossibility to express such a deviation (e.g., if it's
+composed of several conditions).
+
+Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Directives:
+----------------------------------------------
+
+.. list-table::
+ :header-rows: 1
+
+ * - Directive identifier
+ - Justification
+ - Notes
+
+ * - D4.3
+ - Accepted for the ARM64 codebase
+ - Tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR on any other violation report.
+
+ * - D4.3
+ - The inline asm in 'xen/arch/arm/arm64/lib/bitops.c' is tightly coupled
+ with the surronding C code that acts as a wrapper, so it has been
decided
+ not to add an additional encapsulation layer.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
+-----------------------------------------
+
+.. list-table::
+ :header-rows: 1
+
+ * - Rule identifier
+ - Justification
+ - Notes
+
+ * - R2.1
+ - The compiler implementation guarantees that the unreachable code is
+ removed. Constant expressions and unreachable branches of if and switch
+ statements are expected.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R2.1
+ - Unreachability caused by calls to the following functions or macros is
+ deliberate and there is no risk of code being unexpectedly left out.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. Such macros are:
+ - BUG
+ - assert_failed
+ - __builtin_unreachable
+ - ASSERT_UNREACHABLE
+
+ * - R2.1
+ - Pure declarations, that is, declarations without initializations are not
+ executable, and therefore it is safe for them to be unreachable. The
most
+ notable example of such a pattern being used in the codebase is that of
+ a variable declaration that should be available in all the clauses of a
+ switch statement.
+ - ECLAIR has been configured to ignore those statements.
+
+ * - R2.2
+ - Proving compliance with respect to Rule 2.2 is generally impossible:
+ see `<https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13933>`_ for details. Moreover, peer
+ review gives us confidence that no evidence of errors in the program's
+ logic has been missed due to undetected violations of Rule 2.2, if any.
+ Testing on time behavior gives us confidence on the fact that, should
the
+ program contain dead code that is not removed by the compiler, the
+ resulting slowdown is negligible.
+ - Project-wide deviation, tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R3.1
+ - Comments starting with '/\*' and containing hyperlinks are safe as they
+ are not instances of commented-out code.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R5.3
+ - As specified in rules.rst, shadowing due to macros being used as macro
+ arguments is allowed, as it's deemed not at risk of causing developer
+ confusion.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. So far, the following macros are deviated:
+ - READ_SYSREG and WRITE_SYSREG
+ - max_{t}? and min_{t}?
+ - read_[bwlq] and read_[bwlq]_relaxed
+ - per_cpu and this_cpu
+ - __emulate_2op and __emulate_2op_nobyte
+ - read_debugreg and write_debugreg
+
+ * - R7.2
+ - Violations caused by __HYPERVISOR_VIRT_START are related to the
+ particular use of it done in xen_mk_ulong.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R7.4
+ - Allow pointers of non-character type as long as the pointee is
+ const-qualified.
+ - ECLAIR has been configured to ignore these assignments.
+
+ * - R8.3
+ - The type ret_t is deliberately used and defined as int or long depending
+ on the architecture.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R8.3
+ - Some files are not subject to respect MISRA rules at
+ the moment, but some entity from a file in scope is used; therefore
+ ECLAIR does report a violation, since not all the files involved in the
+ violation are excluded from the analysis.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. Such excluded files are:
+ - xen/arch/x86/time.c
+ - xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
+ - xen/arch/x86/mpparse.c
+ - xen/common/bunzip2.c
+ - xen/common/unlz4.c
+ - xen/common/unlzma.c
+ - xen/common/unlzo.c
+ - xen/common/unxz.c
+ - xen/common/unzstd.c
+
+ * - R8.4
+ - The definitions present in the files 'asm-offsets.c' for any
architecture
+ are used to generate definitions for asm modules, and are not called by
+ C code. Therefore the absence of prior declarations is safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R8.4
+ - The functions defined in the file xen/common/coverage/gcov_base.c are
+ meant to be called from gcc-generated code in a non-release build
+ configuration. Therefore, the absence of prior declarations is safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R8.6
+ - The following variables are compiled in multiple translation units
+ belonging to different executables and therefore are safe.
+
+ - current_stack_pointer
+ - bsearch
+ - sort
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R8.6
+ - Declarations without definitions are allowed (specifically when the
+ definition is compiled-out or optimized-out by the compiler).
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` in ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R8.10
+ - The gnu_inline attribute without static is deliberately allowed.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R9.5
+ - The possibility of committing mistakes by specifying an explicit
+ dimension is higher than omitting the dimension, therefore all such
+ instances of violations are deviated.
+ - Project-wide deviation, tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1, R10.3, R10.4
+ - The value-preserving conversions of integer constants are safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - Shifting non-negative integers to the right is safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - Shifting non-negative integers to the left is safe if the result is
still
+ non-negative.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - Bitwise logical operations on non-negative integers are safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - The implicit conversion to Boolean for logical operator arguments is
+ well-known to all Xen developers to be a comparison with 0.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - Xen only supports architectures where signed integers are representend
+ using two's complement and all the Xen developers are aware of this. For
+ this reason, bitwise operations are safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R10.1
+ - Given the assumptions on the toolchain detailed in
+ docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst and the build flags used by the
+ project, it is deemed safe to use bitwise shift operators.
+ See automation/eclair_analysis/deviations.ecl for the full explanation.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R13.5
+ - All developers and reviewers can be safely assumed to be well aware of
+ the short-circuit evaluation strategy for logical operators.
+ - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R14.2
+ - The severe restrictions imposed by this rule on the use of 'for'
+ statements are not counterbalanced by the presumed facilitation of the
+ peer review activity.
+ - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R14.3
+ - The Xen team relies on the fact that invariant conditions of 'if'
+ statements are deliberate.
+ - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R20.7
+ - Code violating Rule 20.7 is safe when macro parameters are used:
+ (1) as function arguments;
+ (2) as macro arguments;
+ (3) as array indices;
+ (4) as lhs in assignments.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+Other deviations:
+-----------------
+
+.. list-table::
+ :header-rows: 1
+
+ * - Deviation
+ - Justification
+
+ * - do-while-0 loops
+ - The do-while-0 is a well-recognized loop idiom used by the Xen community
+ and can therefore be used, even though it would cause a number of
+ violations in some instances.
+
+ * - while-0 and while-1 loops
+ - while-0 and while-1 are well-recognized loop idioms used by the Xen
+ community and can therefore be used, even though they would cause a
+ number of violations in some instances.
diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst
index 3139ca7ae6dd..6efe66195de3 100644
--- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ It is possible that in specific circumstances it is best not
to follow a
rule because it is not possible or because the alternative leads to
better code quality. Those cases are called "deviations". They are
permissible as long as they are documented. For details, please refer to
-docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst
+docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst and docs/misra/deviations.rst
Other documentation mechanisms are work-in-progress.
--
2.34.1
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |