Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/3] x86/uaccess: replace __{get,put}_user_bad() with STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/02/24 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The important difference is: Here we're told that there was a use of
> __put_user_bad, which is easy to grep for, and thus see how the
> supplied function / file / line(?) relate to the ultimate problem.
>
> I'm afraid I'm meanwhile confused enough by the various replies
> containing results of experimentation that I can't really tell
> anymore what case is best. Hence I can only restate my expectation for
> an eventual v3: Diagnosing what the issue is, no matter whether the new
> macro is used in another macro or in an inline function, should not
> become meaningfully more difficult. In how far this is the case wants
> clarifying in the description of the change.
I think the best thing at the moment is to deviate
__{get,put}_user_bad() for Rule 16.3.
I'll let maintainers further explore the possibility of having a
compile-time assertion based on the assembler error.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)