From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54080) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGV09-0002ts-LS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 15:43:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGV08-0004i6-Rl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 15:43:49 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:49130 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGV08-0004hx-NR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 15:43:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4243CA5015 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:43:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <20180509111258.GE2527@work-vm> (David Alan Gilbert's message of "Wed, 9 May 2018 12:12:59 +0100") References: <20180425112723.1111-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20180425112723.1111-12-quintela@redhat.com> <20180502180447.GM2679@work-vm> <87bmdp5bmv.fsf@secure.laptop> <20180509111258.GE2527@work-vm> Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 21:46:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8ng394z.fsf@secure.laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 11/21] migration: Create multifd packet List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lvivier@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote: > * Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote: >> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote: >> > * Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote: >> > I think that needs validating to ensure that the source didn't >> > send us junk and cause us to overwrite after the end of block->host >> >> if (offset > block->used_length) { >> error_setg(errp, "multifd: offest too long %" PRId64 >> " (max %" PRId64 ")", >> offset, block->max_length); >> return -1; >> } >> ?? > > It's probably (offset + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) that needs checking > but it needs doing in a wrap-safe way. > if ((offset + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) < offset) { error_setg(errp, "multifd: offset %" PRId64 " wraps around" " with offset: %" PRId64, offset, block->max_length); return -1; } if ((offset + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) > block->used_length) { error_setg(errp, "multifd: offset too long %" PRId64 " (max %" PRId64 ")", offset, block->max_length); return -1; } Sometimes I wonder how is that we don't have ramblock_contains_range(ramblock, start, size); But well, c'est la vie. Later, Juan.