Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

Kent Overstreet
2023-09-10T00:53:32Z

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 01:20:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 13:02, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > And guess what happens when you have (unsigned char)-1? It does *not*
> > cast back to -1.
>
> Side note: again, this may be one of those "it works in practice",
> because if we have -fshort-enums, I think 'enum
> btree_node_locked_type' in turn ends up being represented as a 'signed
> char', because that's the smallest simple type that can fit all those
> values.
>
> I don't think gcc ever uses less than that (ie while a six_lock_type
> could fit in two bits, it's still going to be considered at least a
> 8-bit value in practice).
>
> So we may have 'enum six_lock_type' essentially being 'unsigned char',
> and when the code does
>
> mark_btree_node_locked(trans, path, 0, BTREE_NODE_UNLOCKED);
>
> that BTREE_NODE_UNLOCKED value might actually be 255.
>
> And then when it's cast to 'enum btree_node_locked_type' in the inline
> function, the 255 will be cast to 'signed char', and we'll end up
> compatible with '(enum btree_node_locked_type)-1' again.
>
> So it's one of those things that are seriously wrong to do, but might
> generate the expected code anyway.
>
> Unless the compiler adds any other sanity checks, like UBSAN or
> something, that actually uses the exact range of the enums.
>
> It could happen even without UBSAN, if the compiler ends up going "I
> can see that the original value came from a 'enum six_lock_type', so I
> know the original value can't be signed, so any comparison with
> BTREE_NODE_UNLOCKED can never be true.
>
> But again, I suspect that in practice this all just happens to work.
> That doesn't make it right.

No, this was just broken - it should have been
mark_btree_node_unlocked(), we never should've been passing that enum
val there.