Re: MISRA C:2012 D4.11 caution on staging

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/10/2023 15:28, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 17/10/2023 07:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 16.10.2023 20:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Instead, it would be best to find a way to help Eclair to detect this 
> > > is
> > > not an issue and also improve readability. Would the following help 
> > > Eclair?
> > > diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c
> > > index 30c227967345..ab16124eabd6 100644
> > > --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> > > +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> > > @@ -671,6 +671,8 @@ struct domain *domain_create(domid_t domid,
> > >
> > >        if ( !is_idle_domain(d) )
> > >        {
> > > +        ASSERT(config);
> > > +
> > >            watchdog_domain_init(d);
> > >            init_status |= INIT_watchdog;
> > Just to mention it: Even if right now it turned out to help, it 
> > wouldn't
> > once release builds are also checked.
> Indeed. I thought about it when writing the e-mail yesterday. I have
> the feeling that we are not getting many similar report today thanks
> to the various ASSERT().
>
> This may mean that the ASSERT() will have to be kept during static
> analysis or we deviate/add proper error checking.
>
> Cheers,
I tested this, and the report is prevented by the ASSERT. It's up to the 
maintainers to
decide how do you want to proceed: my suggestion is deviating it, and 
then when someone
has the time to fix this with proper error handling remove the 
deviation.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)