From: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
A missing factor for the refcount table entry size in the calculation
could mean that too little memory was allocated for the in-memory
representation of the table, resulting in a buffer overflow.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru>
Tested-by: Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru>
(cherry picked from commit a3548077062dd9dc2701ebffd931ba6eaef40bec)
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
block/qcow2-refcount.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/qcow2-refcount.c b/block/qcow2-refcount.c
index 5e3f915..96224d1 100644
--- a/block/qcow2-refcount.c
+++ b/block/qcow2-refcount.c
@@ -301,7 +301,8 @@ static int alloc_refcount_block(BlockDriverState *bs,
uint64_t last_table_size;
uint64_t blocks_clusters;
do {
- uint64_t table_clusters = size_to_clusters(s, table_size);
+ uint64_t table_clusters =
+ size_to_clusters(s, table_size * sizeof(uint64_t));
blocks_clusters = 1 +
((table_clusters + refcount_block_clusters - 1)
/ refcount_block_clusters);
--
1.7.9.5
