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.
