On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 11:35:08AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/7/3 3:56, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 05:21:09PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> Move the evaluation expression "size - offset" after the "if (offset < 0)"
> >> judgment statement to eliminate a false positive produced by the UBSAN.
> >>
> >> No functional changes.
> >>
> >> ==========================================================================
> >> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/iomap.c:1435:9
> >> signed integer overflow:
> >> 0 - -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
> >
> > I don't understand. I thought we defined the behaviour of signed
> > integer overflow in the kernel with whatever-the-gcc-flag-is?
>
> -9223372036854775808 ==> 0x8000000000000000 ==> -0
>
> I don't fully understand what you mean. This is triggered by explicit error
> injection '-0' at runtime, which should not be detected by compilation options.
We use -fwrapv on the gcc command line:
'-fwrapv'
This option instructs the compiler to assume that signed arithmetic
overflow of addition, subtraction and multiplication wraps around
using twos-complement representation. This flag enables some
optimizations and disables others.
> lseek(r1, 0x8000000000000000, 0x3)
I'll see about adding this to xfstests ...
