[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1 v4] Allow machines to configure the QEMU_VER

From: Crístian Viana
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1 v4] Allow machines to configure the QEMU_VERSION that's exposed via hardware
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:08:37 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1

Hi Peter,

Thanks for all your tips!

OK, this has been bugging me for the last three versions, and
since I'm complaining about other things anyway: can you reword
this commit message, please, so that it is a standalone paragraph
explaining (a) what the commit does and (b) why it is doing it, rather
than being a combination of an unattributed quote from Anthony and some
new text from you. Commit messages aren't emails.
Explanatory remarks like the URL to the previous discussion can go
below the '---' line where they won't appear in the formal git commit

Ok, I rewrote the commit message.

When you're posting a new version of a patch please include a
summary of changes since the previous version below the '---'


So when you posted the previous version of your patch it was pointed
out that this is a buffer overflow:

You need to fix this.

I have sent a reply to that thread explaining that the user actually doesn't have control of that string, that is only used internally in the code (just like the QEMU_VERSION macro). I fixed the code now with snprintf copying at most 12 chars to the string (the array size). I can't think of why pstrcat would be better in this case, as suggested by Erik.

The questions about the usb-redir version still apply too:

I have also sent a reply to that thread asking if the usb-redir version appears to the guest but I haven't got no answer.

Don't just leave things unchanged from previous versions that were objected
to without explicitly mentioning them in the below-the-'---' commentary (ie
explaining why you decided not to change them), please. Otherwise reviewers
have to go through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb rechecking whether
you've actually fixed anything.
I didn't know there was "patch changelog protocol" here, I'll do it from now on.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]