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_prokopch...@epam.com>
---
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).
-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
