Re: [PATCH 04/12] x86: add noreturn in a few more places

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2026-09-01 08:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.08.2026 21:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 28/08/2026 8:01 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> > > @@ -2304,7 +2304,7 @@ void asmlinkage entry_from_pv(struct cpu
> > >      case X86_ET_HW_EXC:
> > >          switch ( vec )
> > >          {
> > > -        case X86_EXC_DF: return do_double_fault(regs);
> > > +        case X86_EXC_DF: do_double_fault(regs); /* noreturn */
> > >          case X86_EXC_MC: return do_machine_check(regs);
> > >          }
> > >          break;
> > > @@ -2615,7 +2615,7 @@ void asmlinkage entry_from_xen(struct cp
> > >      case X86_ET_HW_EXC:
> > >          switch ( regs->fred_ss.vector )
> > >          {
> > > -        case X86_EXC_DF: return do_double_fault(regs);
> > > +        case X86_EXC_DF: do_double_fault(regs); /* noreturn */
> > >          case X86_EXC_MC: return do_machine_check(regs);
> > >          }
> > >          break;
> > For starters you're missing a break, and the only reason this isn't a
> > compile error is the trailing comment.
> "break" there would again be unreachable, though.
>
> >   Second, it's a tailcall anyway. 
> > There really is nothing unreachable anywhere in this construct.
> Just that the concept of "tailcall" is an optimization, not something
> inherent to the language.
>
> > But by far the most important, it the singular noreturn attribute on
> > do_double_fault() (elsewhere, and not visible when reading these two
> > functions) which is preventing #DF falling into #MC.   This introduces
> > fragility which did not exist previously.
> I realized that when making the patch, yet what do you do when the rule
> is as it is? Hence why I added the comment, really.
>
> > do_double_fault() would conditionally return if we ever got around to
> > fixing espfix64.
> And hence would have to lose its "noreturn". At which point call sites
> would need inspecting. (As said - yes, I do realize the fragility.)
>
> > So no - I'm going to insist that Eclair is taught to accept "return
> > some_noreturn_fn();" as intentional.  It is objectively less fragile
> > than the MISRA-preferred option.
> Nicola, thoughts?
If you find a suitable argument from the toolchain that the generated 
code is correct even though you return from a function where you 
promised not to return in its declaration, I suppose that's fine, but 
that MISRA Rule I mentioned ("A function declared with a _Noreturn 
function specifier shall not return to its caller"), which is not (yet) 
applied to Xen exists to defend from stumbling on UB 71 of C11: A 
function declared with a _Noreturn function specifier shall not return 
to its caller.
So in general ECLAIR should not accept this by default. What you can do 
is deviate these (hopefully few) cases if you have backing evidence of 
the correct behavior.

--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253