On 3/7/19 10:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Be more specific about the string representation in header extensions. > > Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > --- > docs/interop/qcow2.txt | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >
Based-on: <20190227172256.30368-1-kw...@redhat.com> > > > +== String header extensions == > + > +Some header extensions (such as the backing file format name and the external > +data file name) are just a single string. In this case, the header extension > +length is the string length and the string is not '\0' terminated. (The > header > +extension padding can make it look like a string is '\0' terminated, but > +neither is padding always necessary nor is there a guarantee that zero bytes > +are used for padding.) We didn't require 0 padding? (goes and re-reads) - oops, yes that's correct. It makes it harder to extend a struct by making use of that padding if you can't guarantee what the padding had to be prior to the extension, and means that you have to consider whether there are any potential security risks of the padding being used as a side channel to leak information while still being a well-formed file. But changing the standard to require zero padding is different than documenting existing practice, so your patch is correct. Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature