On May 18, 2011, at 05:36, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/qcow2.c b/lib/ext2fs/qcow2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..7de72ed
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/qcow2.c
> +int qcow2_write_raw_image(int qcow2_fd, int raw_fd,
> + struct ext2_qcow2_hdr *hdr)
> +{
> + struct ext2_qcow2_image img;
> + errcode_t ret = 0;
> + unsigned int l1_index, l2_index;
> + ext2_off64_t offset;
> + blk64_t *l1_table, *l2_table;
> + void *copy_buf = NULL;
> + size_t size;
> +
> + if (hdr->crypt_method)
> + return -QCOW_ENCRYPTED;
Good.
> + for (l1_index = 0; l1_index < img.l1_size; l1_index++) {
> + ext2_off64_t off_out;
> +
> + offset = ext2fs_be64_to_cpu(l1_table[l1_index]) &
> + ~QCOW_OFLAG_COPIED;
> +
> + if ((offset > img.image_size) ||
> + (offset <= 0))
> + continue;
Should this be considered an error, instead of just silently continuing? At a minimum it should print an error to the user and return a non-zero value on exit, but I'm not sure whether it should abort because the user may care more about extracting _some_ data from the image instead of little or none.
Cheers, Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
