Re: [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] automation/eclair: add deviation for MISRA C:2012 Rule 17.1

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.03.2024 14:44, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> On 22/03/24 10:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.03.2024 09:46, Simone Ballarin wrote:
>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> @@ -382,6 +382,32 @@ explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention 
>>> is present."
>>>   -config=MC3R1.R16.6,switch_clauses+={deliberate, "default(0)"}
>>>   -doc_end
>>>   
>>> +#
>>> +# Series 17.
>>> +#
>>> +
>>> +-doc_begin="printf()-like functions are allowed to use the variadic 
>>> features provided by stdarg.h."
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(debugtrace_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dt_dprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(guest_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(panic)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(gdprintk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(snprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(scnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(xasprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(mm_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(dbgp_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(elf_call_log_callback)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vsnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vscnprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(xvasprintf)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(vprintk_common)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(^.*va_list.*$&&context(ancestor_or_self(name(guest_printk)&&kind(function))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R17.1,macros+={hide , "^va_(arg|start|copy|end)$"}
>>> +-doc_end
>>
>> Repeating v1 comments which weren't addressed> 
>> Is there a reason xyzprintk() are all listed individually? Surely if
>> we'd introduce a new flavor, we'd want that excluded too.
>>> {,g}dprintk() in neither of their incarnation use any of the va_*
>> items listed. Why do they need mentioning here?
> 
> What do you mean with "xyzprintk()"? Maybe you mean a regex-based
> deviation using ".*printk\(.*\)"?

Regex or globbing, whatever is available.

> That would unnecessarily deviate "{,g}dprintk()" as you said.

Depends on how the regex would be written.

> Moreover, to cover also "vprintk_common", we would instead need something like
> "^.*printk.*\(.*\)$".

Or simply accept that such outliers need listing individually. That
would imo still be better than a dozen entries.

> I'm fine in using "^.*printk.*\(.*\)$", I just preferred the individual
> whitelisting to avoid unwanted exclusions.
> 
> P.S:
> using regex I cannot match only the name, but I have to match
> the entire signature.

Interesting. Is that a tool limitation?

Jan