Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tcf-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Address warnings in TCF Agent
  • From: Eugene Tarassov <eugenet@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:06:46 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=xilinx.com; dkim=pass header.d=xilinx.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lDGzKyI3ioBW19VB9kwJhhRfF43ABsTFFXeRAduB+sY=; b=kzEblFoaVJ9/fe6NHNFCRwvfUzLJ2Kop08xoV5FjziNYVRSIW1JqyYDdI0xiYK9FdXehQmpOc3I2spWObp0VUkjT1r/YM6LI6feOLrQai5rvwxTbeUkgAoe9azStGOjMKNHflN+3ybE2p3LRKPaA/T6L8G71qUysPuFUw316z4b/+1Ac9t2SWszgxl9XmG+mUiB+cwOU6j/0i4Lv6kHN2sKoMc18x2uLyrSQSjuVGm4YPAWodcIYWc0/3Ou9gsfrs+VwOlBDf1UwX7YRDUdXodh/Q4WGzeJPXcKs4KG4x67LlHb4L16TcPLbxiRNvp9QYExApNg45G0iI1/OA5XldQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cxAp0NcX2w/xt937WDwLBO5DzLqBSbvGOSg+cVqkiA5j22LsVzBxha6VB62IbxadqoPA+u5/AZJiP+TDiYVHf4TEnVSnlDHNb3XzPA/6BA2JlkNIyoG8AI2ffHGzwNSI+vBjl0fkK260tsHStCYMw8Z9fZYiQg0HBbQs0GwUicXoz2z4yHo1VYmJD60SVY6TA3MVm8yaic3vRfuvK4+vzAfe9C8485DkVp+5USDhEDeo4T9Dt9QWnj4F0QlV5TfSlKoY5UB93wEqMJd4WDsm+a8PKOsqaFkdmGki7gA/W9aWYPG4H2CmQ9U6qElQO6RKSFOs9xWiykGOr8M6jQ7sPQ==
  • Delivered-to: tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/private/tcf-dev>
  • List-help: <mailto:tcf-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
  • List-subscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tcf-dev>, <mailto:tcf-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/options/tcf-dev>, <mailto:tcf-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: AQHWsXIpIeWm2aCTkUefFllRH1URS6m1hsWggADnqYCAAEPXcA==
  • Thread-topic: [tcf-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Address warnings in TCF Agent

Hi Joel,

 

> Which do you prefer?

 

I prefer Gerrit in simple cases, like this.

In complex cases, I prefer a problem to be reported and discussed in Bugzilla, then a solution submitted and reviewed in Gerrit.

 

Regards,

Eugene

 

From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Sherrill
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:53 AM
To: TCF Development <tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [tcf-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Address warnings in TCF Agent

 

CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:27 PM Eugene Tarassov <eugenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Joel,

Eclipse bylaws do not allow me to handle any code over e-mail.

 

OK. Thanks for the follow up. 


To contribute to an Eclipse project, you need to create Eclipse account an do a bit of paperwork.
Eclipse requires contributors to agree to this Eclipse Contributor Agreement ("ECA"):
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/ECA.php

 

Done.  

 

I should have remembered this since I have done contributor agreements with

other organizations before. Sorry.



Then, you can submit contributions by
either creating a bug report at https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/
or by submitting patches to Eclipse code review system https://wiki.eclipse.org/Gerrit

 

Which do you prefer?

 

--joel 



Thanks,
Eugene


-----Original Message-----
From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Sherrill
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 2:55 PM
To: tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tcf-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Address warnings in TCF Agent

CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.


Hi,

I hope this is the right way to submit minor patches. If not, please educate me.

Compiling for GCC 7.5 targetting arm-rtems, there were a couple of warnings in the general agent source.

+ asyncreq.c has a potential buffer overflow where the return value from
  snprintf() is not checked. Looking at the two values concatenated with a
  / between them, it seemed safer to check the return value than attempt to
  make the destination buffer larger.

+ compression.c has a method declaration which is missing the word void
  between the (). GCC says this is not proper.

Thanks.

--joel

Joel Sherrill (2):
  asyncreq.c: Check return value from snprintf() for buffer overflow
  compression.c: Fix gcc not a prototype warning

 agent/tcf/framework/asyncreq.c    | 4 +++-
 agent/tcf/framework/compression.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--
1.8.3.1

_______________________________________________
tcf-dev mailing list
tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tcf-dev
_______________________________________________
tcf-dev mailing list
tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tcf-dev

Back to the top