From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add a weekly coverity flight
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 10:46:27 +0000
Message-ID: <56B1DA83.20306@citrix.com>
References: <1454492776-23788-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com>
	<1454492776-23788-2-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com>
	<1454494797.25207.39.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1454494797.25207.39.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 03/02/16 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 09:46 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>  [...]
>> +sub build () {
>> +    my $make = "make $makeflags";
>> +
>> +    # Pre build things we don't want coverity to scan, but which are
>> +    # normally built by some other command.
>> +    target_cmd_build($ho, 1000, $builddir, <<END);
>> +cd $builddir/xen
>> +./configure
>> +$make -C tools/firmware/etherboot all
>> +$make mini-os-dir
>> +END
>> +
>> +    # Now the stuff we want coverity to look at
>> +    target_cmd_build($ho, 9000, $builddir, <<END);
>> +cd $builddir/xen
>> +export PATH=$builddir/covtools/bin:\$PATH
>> +cov-build --dir cov-int $make -C extras/mini-os/
>> +cov-build --dir cov-int $make xen tools
> This omits building stubdom, which Andy's original script also did.
>
> However stubdom exists as a category in the scan webui and there have
> previously been results for stubdoms.
>
> Andy, I presume you deliberately started excluding stubdoms at some point?
> I think this is probably the right thing to do, at least for now, since
> stubdoms run with guest privileges so aren't hugely interesting, plus they
> include an awful lot of third party code which we don't want to be
> scanning+triaging (especially given how out of date some of the code is).

Correct.  That is precisely why I prevented stubdom and etherboot from
being scanned.

~Andrew