qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] qcow2: Fix theoretical corruption in store_bitmap() erro


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] qcow2: Fix theoretical corruption in store_bitmap() error path
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:37:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1

On 13/1/23 11:45, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 13.01.2023 um 08:30 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben:
On 12/1/23 20:14, Kevin Wolf wrote:
In order to write the bitmap table to the image file, it is converted to
big endian. If the write fails, it is passed to clear_bitmap_table() to
free all of the clusters it had allocated before. However, if we don't
convert it back to native endianness first, we'll free things at a wrong
offset.

In practical terms, the offsets will be so high that we won't actually
free any allocated clusters, but just run into an error, but in theory
this can cause image corruption.

Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
---
   block/qcow2-bitmap.c | 5 +++--
   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Maybe add a comment here remembering to bswap back to native endianness?

-static inline void bitmap_table_to_be(uint64_t *bitmap_table, size_t size)
+static inline void bitmap_table_bswap_be(uint64_t *bitmap_table, size_t size)
   {

This function uses cpu_to_be64(), semantically we convert back calling
be64_to_cpu(), but technically both functions end up being the same.

Yes, but we don't seem to have any public "neutral" functions, it's
always either from or to.

Alternatively:

      for (i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
-        bitmap_table[i] = cpu_to_be64(bitmap_table[i]);
+        bswap64s(&bitmap_table[i]);
      }

Doesn't that swap even on big endian hosts, resulting incorrectly in a
little endian table?

Oops yes you are right... sorry!

The closest thing we have that I can see is the be_bswap() macro in
bswap.h, but it's undefined again at the end of the header.

Indeed.

Regards,

Phil.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]