Re: [XEN PATCH][for-4.19 v4] xen: Add deviations for MISRA C:2012 Rule 7.1

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 26.10.2023 10:18, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -85,10 +85,12 @@ conform to the directive."
>  # Series 7.
>  #
>  
> --doc_begin="Usage of the following constants is safe, since they are given 
> as-is
> -in the inflate algorithm specification and there is therefore no risk of them
> -being interpreted as decimal constants."
> --config=MC3R1.R7.1,literals={safe, 
> "^0(007|37|070|213|236|300|321|330|331|332|333|334|335|337|371)$"}
> +-doc_begin="It is safe to use certain octal constants the way they are 
> defined in
> +specifications, manuals, and algorithm descriptions."
> +-file_tag+={x86_svm_h, "^xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm\\.h$"}
> +-file_tag+={x86_emulate_c, "^xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/emulate\\.c$"}
> +-config=MC3R1.R7.1,reports+={safe, 
> "any_area(any_loc(any_exp(file(x86_svm_h)&&macro(^INSTR_ENC$))))"}
> +-config=MC3R1.R7.1,reports+={safe, 
> "any_area(text(^.*octal-ok.*$)&&any_loc(any_exp(file(x86_emulate_c)&&macro(^MASK_EXTR$))))"}

Is the matching of file name and MASK_EXTR() still appropriate with ...

> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -90,6 +90,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
>           - __emulate_2op and __emulate_2op_nobyte
>           - read_debugreg and write_debugreg
>  
> +   * - R7.1
> +     - It is safe to use certain octal constants the way they are defined
> +       in specifications, manuals, and algorithm descriptions. Such places
> +       are marked safe with a /\* octal-ok \*/ in-code comment, or with a SAF
> +       comment (see safe.json).
> +     - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.

... this description? I would have expected the key now solely is an
"octal-ok" comment?

Jan