[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block/vhdx: add check for truncated image files

From: Peter Lieven
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block/vhdx: add check for truncated image files
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:17:58 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

Am 02.09.19 um 15:46 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
Am 02.09.2019 um 15:15 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
Am 02.09.19 um 15:07 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
Am 29.08.2019 um 15:36 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
qemu is currently not able to detect truncated vhdx image files.
Add a basic check if all allocated blocks are reachable to vhdx_co_check.

Signed-off-by: Jan-Hendrik Frintrop <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
   block/vhdx.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/vhdx.c b/block/vhdx.c
index 6a09d0a55c..4382b1375d 100644
--- a/block/vhdx.c
+++ b/block/vhdx.c
@@ -2068,10 +2068,29 @@ static int coroutine_fn vhdx_co_check(BlockDriverState 
                                         BdrvCheckMode fix)
       BDRVVHDXState *s = bs->opaque;
+    VHDXSectorInfo sinfo;
+    int64_t file_size = bdrv_get_allocated_file_size(bs);
Don't you mean bdrv_getlength()?

bdrv_get_allocated_file_size() is only the allocated size, i.e. without
holes. So a higher offset may actually be present.

Isn't bdrv_getlength the virtual disk size? I need to check if a block
points to a location after EOF of the underlying physical file.
Yes, it would have to be bdrv_getlength(bs->file->bs), i.e. call it on
the protocol layer, not on the format layer.

+    int64_t sector_num;
       if (s->log_replayed_on_open) {
+    for (sector_num = 0; sector_num < bs->total_sectors;
+         sector_num += s->block_size / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {
+        int nb_sectors = MIN(bs->total_sectors - sector_num,
+                             s->block_size / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE);
+        vhdx_block_translate(s, sector_num, nb_sectors, &sinfo);
+        if ((s->bat[sinfo.bat_idx] & VHDX_BAT_STATE_BIT_MASK) ==
+            if (sinfo.file_offset +
+                sinfo.sectors_avail * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE > file_size) {
Do we need to protect against integer overflows here? I think
sinfo.file_offset comes directly from the image file and might be

Or has it already been check somewhere?

The headers are being checked in vhdx_open.  sinfo.file_offset +
sinfo.sectors_avail * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE is exactly what is being passed
to bdrv_pread when reading from the image file.
Fair enough, though if I'm not missing anything, we only check that BAT
entries don't overlap with other regions, not that they aren't too high.
And vhdx_block_translate() doesn't seem to check for overflows either
before it sets sinfo->sectors_avail.

So maybe this is actually a bug that should be fixed in
vhdx_block_translate() so that normal accesses get the fix, too.

Or maybe already or also check in vhdx_open when we already iterate over all 
BAT entries?

vhdx_block_translate cannot return an error at the moment.


reply via email to

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