Am 09.02.2018 um 16:11 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Fri 09 Feb 2018 04:03:31 PM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > How about we move the check to bdrv_open() as proposed, but make it
> > conditional so that it's skipped with BDRV_O_CHECK and then add a way
> > to fix the situation with qemu-img
On Fri 09 Feb 2018 04:03:31 PM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> How about we move the check to bdrv_open() as proposed, but make it
> conditional so that it's skipped with BDRV_O_CHECK and then add a way
> to fix the situation with qemu-img check -r?
That was one of the alternatives that I was
Am 09.02.2018 um 14:04 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 2018-02-09 12:37, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > The code that reads the qcow2 snapshot table takes the offset and size
> > of all snapshots' L1 table without doing any kind of checks.
> >
> > Although qcow2_snapshot_load_tmp() does verify that
On 2018-02-09 14:35, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 09 Feb 2018 02:04:06 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>> I don't like completely refusing to open a qcow2 image if one of the
>> snapshots is invalid, without giving the user any way of fixing it.
>>
>> With this patch, the final two images created in
On Fri 09 Feb 2018 02:04:06 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
> I don't like completely refusing to open a qcow2 image if one of the
> snapshots is invalid, without giving the user any way of fixing it.
>
> With this patch, the final two images created in 080 cannot be opened
> at all (not even with
On 2018-02-09 12:37, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> The code that reads the qcow2 snapshot table takes the offset and size
> of all snapshots' L1 table without doing any kind of checks.
>
> Although qcow2_snapshot_load_tmp() does verify that the table size is
> valid, the table offset is not checked at
