Re: generic/013 failure to Samba

[ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong.chenxiaosong@linux.dev>]

Yes, you are correct. I didn't consider `cpu_to_le32()`.

How about changing it to the following?
```
smb2_copychunk_range()
{
	...
	chunks = 0;
	while (copy_bytes_left > 0 && chunks < chunk_count) {
		cc_req->ChunkCount = cpu_to_le32(++chunks);
		chunk = &cc_req->Chunks[chunks - 1];
		...
	}
	...
}
```

I also agree with your point about the Fixes tag.

Thanks,
ChenXiaoSong.

On 12/26/25 11:45 PM, Henrique Carvalho wrote:
> I don't agree with the proposed changes for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1. ChunkCount is an on-wire __le32. Using it as the loop counter mixes
> endianness-annotated storage with CPU-endian arithmetic and would either
> require constant cpu_to_le32()/le32_to_cpu() conversions or be
> type/endianness misuse. The current CPU-endian u32 chunks counter is
> intentional.
> 
> 2. Re: "Fixes:" tags: the UBSAN report exists because Chunks[] is now
> __counted_by_le(ChunkCount). We currently index Chunks[] while
> ChunkCount is still zero, so the __counted_by contract is violated. That
> points to the commit that introduced the annotation as the Fixes target.
> I don't think the batching commit should be tagged unless it introduced
> a functional issue independent of the annotation.