Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 9 Jul 2023 12:41:25 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Linke Li <lilinke99@foxmail.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Linke Li <lilinke99@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] isofs: fix undefined behavior in iso_date()
Message-ID: <ZKqc5Uj14C7ST21K@casper.infradead.org>
References: <tencent_4D921A8D1F69E70C85C28875DC829E28EC09@qq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tencent_4D921A8D1F69E70C85C28875DC829E28EC09@qq.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 02:42:55PM +0800, Linke Li wrote:
> From: Linke Li <lilinke99@gmail.com>
> 
> Fix undefined behavior in the code by properly handling the left shift operaion.
> Instead of left-shifting a negative value, explicitly cast -1 to an unsigned int
> before the shift. This ensures well defined behavior and resolves any potential
> issues.

This certainly fixes the problem, but wouldn't it be easier to get the
compiler to do the work for us?

#include <stdio.h>

int f(unsigned char *p)
{
	return (signed char)p[0];
}

int main(void)
{
	unsigned char x = 0xa5;

	printf("%d\n", f(&x));

	return 0;
}

prints -91.