[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add missing default labels to switch statements


On 25/02/2019 10:06, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
On 2/23/19 1:41 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 22/02/2019 23:22, Julien Grall wrote:

On 22/02/2019 22:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 22/02/2019 22:11, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,

On 22/02/2019 21:58, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 22/02/2019 21:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
BTW, I checked the series with -Wswitch-default:
Warn whenever a switch statement does not have a default case.
Furthermore, using BUG() is a pretty bad idea in switch.
It is and not only in the switch. The reason I put BUG is that I tried
to follow
the existing "error handling" at those places.
It is not because BUG() is been used today in some places that we need to
continue to spread it.

Use of BUG() itself is another topic which will also need to be
So we should not add more of them...
Again, I see this as a dedicated change. So, in the current series I think
it is
acceptable to use the existing way of error handling if any at all.
That's not how it works in upstream. If you know some constructs are wrong, it is best to try to address partially the problem directly then having so you
reduce the amounts of change afterwards.

So please try to not introduce more BUG() in the code base.
Hi Oleksandr, Julien,

Julien's right that we should not introduce any more BUG()s. In fact,
each of them makes the code less safe, not more safe! The purpose of
MISRAC 16.4 is "defensive programming": write the code in a way that is
more (not less!) resilient to failure.

So, I think it is a good idea to introduce a default label because it
can help us spot unexpected issues. Instead of calling BUG() in the
default handler, which is detrimental, we should return an error when
possible, or just print a warning.
domain_crash() is almost always better than BUG().  It is very obvious
if it gets hit, and wont crash Xen.
That's a good suggestion.

As 16.4 clearly state, even a simple comment would be enough to address
the rule. We just need to explain why a default label is not needed.
Such as:

     /* unreachable because blah and blah */
What a simple comment doesn't do is avoid breaking -Wswitch.
I don't know how to reconcile 16.4 with -Wswitch. One could argue that
-Wswitch could be a good way to address 16.4, but then we introduce a
compiler specific requirement. Typically gcc is not the compiler of
choice for these environments, unfortunately forcing gcc is not an
Well, you could build with GCC and then build with your custom
compiler... But, GCC is pretty much the only choice for Xen on Arm today
as we don't build with clang and I pretty doubt we can build with compcert.
So the suggestion I had was to have an overall CONFIG_MISRA which we can
hide some of this nonsense behind, and then

#define MISRA_BLE_DEFAULT default:
This is pretty disgusting :). But then, it makes the code is bit more
obscure. So how that rule is making Xen more safe? Furthermore, one
default may not rule them all. So aren't we just adding code to make
MISRA happy at the risk of introducing more bug?
Any switch statement where the default isn't empty
(assert/bug/domain_crash/print) should probably be a regular default:

I very much doubt MISRA intended for people to make themselves compliant
by adding "default: break;" everywhere, but lethargy is a powerful
driving force.

An alternative, and substantially more ugly would be to have the else
case be "if ( 0 )" or similar, so you do take out the full next block,
but that requires people to member braces.

Even more ugly would be to take (x) and construct the block manually,
but then you get at minimum a set of brackets where you would expect to
see braces in normal C, and this alone is confusing to read.

So when you disable CONFIG_MISRA, your compiler starts being able to
help you again.

TBH, it would also be nice to hide the SYMBOL nonsense behind, so we can
continue doing it the efficient way for ~100% of the time.
My main concern is we only looked at 2 MISRA rules and we already need
some nonsense code to spread everywhere. How much more are we going to
get like that?
(Un)fortunately many more...

Do you mind providing a list of MISRA C rule that will require tree-wide 

MISRA scanning is just like Coverity scanning.  The item classes with
the highest seen-count tend to be the least interesting and relevant, as
they tend to be the ones where we are systematically different.

It is the one-off flagged issues which tend to be important.
I do agree. There are many more more serious issues on the list.
The "default" rule is just one to try and seemed very straight forward
to fix (I put aside BUG() issue - this was expected to be discussed)

It feels to me we should try to address serious issues first and then look at more controversial changes afterwards.


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.