From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Bbi0f-0008M2-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:44:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Bbi0d-0008Ka-7n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:44:00 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bbi0b-0008KX-VZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:43:59 -0400
Received: from [193.252.22.25] (helo=mwinf0603.wanadoo.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bbhz1-0006hI-Su
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:42:20 -0400
Received: from bellard.org (ATuileries-112-1-3-108.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr
	[81.48.134.108])
	by mwinf0603.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5EC8B24001F6
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:42:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40D45F74.9010701@bellard.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:44:52 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] security_20040618
References: <20040618184036.GA1874@sentinelchicken.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040618184036.GA1874@sentinelchicken.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Tim wrote:
> Updates to this, from the previous version two days ago, include
> additional strcpy replacements, as well as TODO comments pointing out
> unhealthy calls to {m,re}alloc, which don't check for NULL return
> values. (I am not sure how to handle error return codes in most places,
> so just comments for now.)  Also pstrcpy() in vl.c was simplified, but
> should behave exactly the same as before.

Thank you for the fixes.

For malloc() returning NULL, if your patch just says "malloc error", I 
don't consider it is a good fix.

I see that you added many snprintf(). I don't like that because 
pstrcpy() does exactly the right thing and it is faster and simpler.

Fabrice.