Re: [RFC PATCH] misra: allow conversion from unsigned long to function pointer

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2025-08-18 12:16, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
> On 8/14/25 23:43, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 2025-08-14 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 13.08.2025 20:27, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > from `vaddr_t' (that is `unsigned long') to `switch_ttbr_fn*' (that
> > > > is `void(*)(unsigned long)')
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmytro Prokopchuk <dmytro_prokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > This is just a RFC patch.
> > > > The commit message is not important at this stage.
> > > >
> > > > I am seeking comments regarding this case.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > ---
> > > >  automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl |  8 ++++++++
> > > >  docs/misra/deviations.rst                        | 10 ++++++++++
> > > >  docs/misra/rules.rst                             |  8 +++++++-
> > > >  xen/arch/arm/arm64/mmu/mm.c                      |  2 ++
> > > >  4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/
> > > > automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> > > > index ebce1ceab9..f9fd6076b7 100644
> > > > --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> > > > +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> > > > @@ -365,6 +365,14 @@ constant expressions are required.\""
> > > >  }
> > > >  -doc_end
> > > >
> > > > +-doc_begin="The conversion from unsigned long to a function pointer
> > > > does not lose any information, provided that the source type has
> > > > enough bits to restore it."
> > > > +-config=MC3A2.R11.1,casts+={safe,
> > > > +  "from(type(canonical(builtin(unsigned long))))
> > > > +   &&to(type(canonical(__function_pointer_types)))
> > > > +   &&relation(definitely_preserves_value)"
> > > > +}
> > > > +-doc_end
> > > > +
> > This check is not quite targeted at this situation, as the behaviour 
> > of
> > different compilers is a bit of a grey area (even GCC, though that 
> > works
> > in practice). The relation is mostly aimed at testing whether the
> > pointer are represented using the same number of bits as unsigned long
> > (which happens to be the case fortunately).
> Hi Nicola.
>
> Well, we're telling Eclair the conversion types from() and to(), but 
> can
> Eclair determine their sizes (in bits) for particular architecture?
> I mean, is it possible to avoid this "sizeof(unsigned long) ==
> sizeof(void (*)())" in source code using only Eclair configs?
>
> Dmytro.
Unfortunately no. ECLAIR knowns the number of bytes used to represent 
pointer and unsigned long, but what it cannot tell is whether the bits 
are preserved after being converted. What we can do, as it was done 
here, is provide a written justification that this is indeed the case 
for the toolchain we care about (GCC in the specific case). I suggest 
having both the config and the assertion to be extra sure that the 
assumption is never broken (despite being very unlikely).
> > > >  -doc_begin="The conversion from a function pointer to a boolean has
> > > > a well-known semantics that do not lead to unexpected behaviour."
> > > >  -config=MC3A2.R11.1,casts+={safe,
> > > >    "from(type(canonical(__function_pointer_types)))
> > > > diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> > > > index 3c46a1e47a..27848602f6 100644
> > > > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> > > > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> > > > @@ -348,6 +348,16 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> > > >         to store it.
> > > >       - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
> > > >
> > > > +   * - R11.1
> > > > +     - The conversion from unsigned long to a function pointer does
> > > > not lose any
> > > > +       information or violate type safety assumptions if the
> > > > unsigned long type
> > > > +       is guaranteed to be at least as large as a function pointer.
> > > > This ensures
> > > > +       that the function pointer address can be fully represented
> > > > without
> > > > +       truncation or corruption. Macro BUILD_BUG_ON can be
> > > > integrated into the
> > > > +       build system to confirm that 'sizeof(unsigned long) >=
> > > > sizeof(void (*)())'
> > > > +       on all target platforms.
> > > If sizeof(unsigned long) > sizeof(void (*)()), there is loss of
> > > information.
> > > Unless (not said here) the unsigned long value itself is the result 
> > > of
> > > converting a function pointer to unsigned long. Whether all of that
> > > together
> > > can be properly expressed to Eclair I don't know. Hence, as Teddy 
> > > already
> > > suggested, == may want specifying instead.
> > +1; it might be worth to add both the eclair config and the
> > BUILD_BUG_ON, noting that neither is sufficient on its own: unless the
> > compiler guarantees not to fiddle with the value is unaltered when 
> > cast
> > back and forth all checks on the number of bits are moot.
> >
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/mmu/mm.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/mmu/mm.c
> > > > @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ void __init relocate_and_switch_ttbr(uint64_t 
> > > > ttbr)
> > > >      vaddr_t id_addr = virt_to_maddr(relocate_xen);
> > > >      relocate_xen_fn *fn = (relocate_xen_fn *)id_addr;
> > > >      lpae_t pte;
> > > > +    BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(unsigned long) < sizeof(fn));
> > > >
> > > >      /* Enable the identity mapping in the boot page tables */
> > > >      update_identity_mapping(true);
> > > > @@ -178,6 +179,7 @@ void __init switch_ttbr(uint64_t ttbr)
> > > >      vaddr_t id_addr = virt_to_maddr(switch_ttbr_id);
> > > >      switch_ttbr_fn *fn = (switch_ttbr_fn *)id_addr;
> > > >      lpae_t pte;
> > > > +    BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(unsigned long) < sizeof(fn));
> > > >
> > > >      /* Enable the identity mapping in the boot page tables */
> > > >      update_identity_mapping(true);
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON() is a statement, not a declaration, and hence wants
> > > grouping
> > > as such. Question is whether we indeed want to sprinkle such checks 
> > > all
> > > over the code base. (I expect the two cases here aren't all we have.)
> > +1 as well. I would expect such check to live e.g. in compiler.h or 
> > any
> > similarly general header, since this is a widespread and largely arch-
> > neutral property that Xen wants to be always true I believe.
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253