[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/7] block/vdi.c: Avoid potential overflow when calculating s
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/7] block/vdi.c: Avoid potential overflow when calculating size of write |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:59:48 +0200 |
Am 31.07.2024 um 16:36 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
> In vdi_co_pwritev() we multiply a sector count by SECTOR_SIZE to
> get the size to write in bytes. Coverity notes that this means that
> we do the multiply as a 32x32->32 multiply before converting to
> 64 bits, which has the potential to overflow.
>
> This is very unlikely to happen, since the block map has 4 bytes per
> block and the maximum number of blocks in the image must fit into a
> 32-bit integer. But we can keep Coverity happy by including a cast
> so we do a 64-bit multiply here.
>
> Resolves: Coverity CID 1508076
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> ---
> block/vdi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/vdi.c b/block/vdi.c
> index 6363da08cee..27c60ba18d0 100644
> --- a/block/vdi.c
> +++ b/block/vdi.c
> @@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ nonallocating_write:
> logout("will write %u block map sectors starting from entry %u\n",
> n_sectors, bmap_first);
> ret = bdrv_co_pwrite(bs->file, bmap_offset * SECTOR_SIZE,
> - n_sectors * SECTOR_SIZE, base, 0);
> + n_sectors * (uint64_t)SECTOR_SIZE, base, 0);
> }
I wonder if we shouldn't just make VDI's SECTOR_SIZE 64 bits like
BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE. It's easy to miss the cast in individual places.
Kevin