From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46976 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Otgc3-0003vN-6L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:52:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Otgc2-0008Mp-3b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:52:23 -0400
Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:46410)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Otgc1-0008Mf-VA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:52:22 -0400
Received: by iwn38 with SMTP id 38so1147268iwn.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C88D881.4020303@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:52:17 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] raw: Fix image header protection
References: <1283861325-23785-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<4C88D381.5030306@codemonkey.ws> <4C88D6A3.6050001@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C88D6A3.6050001@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 09/09/2010 07:44 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Isn't this an unbounded, guest controlled, malloc?  IOW, a guest could
>> do a request of 4GB and on a 32-bit system crash the qemu instance.
>>      
> If you're concerned about that, we need to ban qemu_iovec_to_buffer()
> completely. Currently we do the same thing for every write request for
> every format but raw.

And QED ;-)

>   Or instead of completely removing it, we could add
> a size limit, though I suspect that would mean violating some specs.
>    

One thing I was thinking of trying was splitting off the first sector 
into a linear buffer, then allocating a new iovec and adjusting the new 
iovec to cover the new request minus the first sector.

> If I was a guest though and wanted to crash qemu, I would just mess up
> the virtio ring a bit so that qemu would exit() voluntarily. ;-)
>    

Yeah, we're terrible at this but we should try to avoid making things 
worse.  Particularly in a code path (like raw images) where we don't 
have this problem today.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Kevin
>