Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1 v4] Allow machines to configure the QEMU_VERSION that's exposed via hardware

[Crístian Viana]

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
> message.

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 '---'
> line.

Ok.

> So when you posted the previous version of your patch it was pointed
> out that this is a buffer overflow:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-04/msg01657.html
>
> 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:
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-04/msg01700.html

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,
Crístian.