> On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/2017 3:43 PM, Keith Wiles wrote:
>> Calling strncpy with a maximum size argument of 16 bytes on destination
>> array "ifr.ifr_ifrn.ifrn_name" of size 16 bytes might leave the
>> destination string unterminated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wi...@intel.com>
>
> net/tap: fix possibly unterminated string
>
> Coverity issue: 1407499
> Fixes: 6b38b2725cdb ("net/tap: fix multi-queue support")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.
>
>
> (Updates:
> - patch title:
> It is preferred to mention from problem solved instead of the tool that
> found it.
>
> - Added coverity tag:
> This helps to trace coverity issues, defined syntax is:
>
> Coverity issue: xxx
> Fixes: yyyy
>
> - Added Cc: tag for stable tree:
> In case stable tree wants get this patch, to make patch visible.
I agree this is good, but to many rules not listed or checked in the tools. We
need a much easier method to submit patches in the format that is defined and
checked.
Today it is way to hard to know every little internal format for every type of
patch. We need to fix this problem to make it easier to submit patches to
dpdk.org, we can not continue like this as we grow it will become way to much
work for the repo maintainers and the submitter.
Using a better tool then submitting via email seems like a better solution as
long as we can add the given checks to the tool. Using a tools should also
reduce the email traffic for most everyone, but we need to allow anyone to ask
for all of the commits to the repo or pull requests like patches.
How can we handle these types of issues in the future?
> )
Regards,
Keith
