[Libguestfs] [PATCH v2 1/2] lib: change how hbin sections are read.

[Dawid Zamirski]

On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 16:54 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:05:20PM -0500, Dawid Zamirski wrote:
> > * hivex_open: when looping over hbin sections (aka pages), handle a
> >   case where following hbin section may not begin at exactly at the
> > end
> >   of previous one. If this happens, scan the page section until
> > next
> >   one is found and validate it by checking declared offset with
> > actual
> >   one - if they match, all is good and we can safely move on.
> > 
> > Rationale: there are registry hives there is some garbage data
> > between
> > hbin section but the hive is still perfectly usable as long as the
> > offsets stated in hbin headers are correct.
> > ---
> >  lib/handle.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/handle.c b/lib/handle.c
> > index 4565d7d..e183ff2 100644
> > --- a/lib/handle.c
> > +++ b/lib/handle.c
> > @@ -226,11 +226,30 @@ hivex_open (const char *filename, int flags)
> >          page->magic[1] != 'b' ||
> >          page->magic[2] != 'i' ||
> >          page->magic[3] != 'n') {
> > -      SET_ERRNO (ENOTSUP,
> > -                 "%s: trailing garbage at end of file "
> > -                 "(at 0x%zx, after %zu pages)",
> > -                 filename, off, pages);
> > -      goto error;
> > +
> > +      DEBUG (2,
> > +             "page not found at expected offset 0x%zx, "
> > +             "seeking until one is found or EOF is reached",
> > +             off);
> > +
> > +      int found = 0;
> > +      while (off < h->endpages) {
> 
> GCC 7 warns:
> 
> handle.c: In function 'hivex_open':
> handle.c:236:13: error: missed loop optimization, the loop counter
> may overflow [-Werror=unsafe-loop-optimizations]
>        while (off < h->endpages) {
>              ^
> 
> I suspect this means that GCC might try to turn this into an infinite
> loop.
> 
> There are actually a few more of these in the existing code - I'm
> going to push a patch to fix these in a minute.
> 
> Rich.
> 

I've just sent out v3 that fix this warning - it was a valid complaint
from GCC7 because off += 0x1000; in the loop body is not a good idea
anyway and it should have been off++;

Dawid