Am 03.04.2020 um 19:58 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > Creating an image that requires format probing of the backing image is > inherently unsafe (we've had several CVEs over the years based on > probes leaking information to the guest on a subsequent boot, although > these days tools like libvirt are aware of the issue enough to prevent > the worst effects). However, if our probing algorithm ever changes, > or if other tools like libvirt determine a different probe result than > we do, then subsequent use of that backing file under a different > format will present corrupted data to the guest. Start a deprecation > clock so that future qemu-img can refuse to create unsafe backing > chains that would rely on probing. Most warnings are intentionally > emitted from bdrv_img_create() in the block layer, but qemu-img > convert uses bdrv_create() which cannot emit its own warning without > causing spurious warnings on other code paths. In the end, all > command-line image creation or backing file rewriting now performs a > check. > > However, there is one time where probing is safe: if we probe raw, > then it is safe to record that implicitly in the image (but we still > warn, as it's better to teach the user to supply -F always than to > make them guess when it is safe). You're not stating it explicitly, but I guess the thing that you mean that is actually unsafe is if you have a raw image, always pass format=raw to QEMU (so the guest could write e.g. a qcow2 header), but then create a backing file without -F, so it will be probed. This is as bad as specifying format=raw only sometimes. I don't like the idea of responding to this by making raw images more convenient to use than actual image formats. How about we approach it the other way around: The troublemaker is raw, so let's require specifying raw explicitly, and record the probed format implicitly in other cases. This is a bit weaker in the immediate effect in that it doesn't protect you when you actually deal with a malicious image, but in normal use it will point out where your scripts or management software is too careless. The final result should be that management tools are fixed and you'll be safe, while manual users who can usually trust their guests aren't inconvenienced too much. Kevin
