nuttxpr commented on PR #15772:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15772#issuecomment-2637690519

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   This PR appears to mostly meet the NuttX requirements, but some 
clarifications and additions are needed.
   
   **Strengths:**
   
   * **Clear problem description:** The summary clearly explains the bug in 
`wcsrtombs()` and its deviation from the POSIX standard.
   * **Good use of references:**  Linking to the POSIX specification and the 
NuttX Apps PR is helpful.
   * **Impact description is reasonable:** The explanation of the impact on 
users and architectures is adequate.
   * **Testing is detailed:** The testing instructions and logs are thorough 
and demonstrate the fix.
   
   **Areas for Improvement:**
   
   * **Summary - What functional part?** Be more specific than 
"libc/wcsrtombs".  Mention the affected function(s) directly, e.g., 
`wcsrtombs()`, `wcsnrtombs()`.  
   * **Impact - Be more explicit with YES/NO answers:**  Instead of writing 
prose, explicitly state `YES` or `NO` for each impact category, then provide 
the description.  This makes the PR easier to scan.  Example:
       * Impact on user: YES (Users relying on the correct POSIX behavior of 
`wcsrtombs()` will see a change. Previously, the function did not 
null-terminate the output string correctly in certain cases, potentially 
leading to errors. This fix ensures correct null-termination, aligning with the 
standard.)
       * Impact on build: NO
       * Impact on hardware: YES (All architectures are affected as this is a 
libc change.)
       * Impact on documentation:  YES (The documentation for `wcsrtombs()` 
should be updated to reflect the corrected behavior.)  Even if you haven't 
updated the documentation yet, stating it *needs* updating is important.  
Ideally, include the documentation update in the same PR.
       * Impact on security:  Potentially YES.  Incorrect string termination 
can lead to buffer overflows in certain scenarios.  Analyze this more carefully 
and provide a definitive YES/NO and explanation.
       * Impact on compatibility: YES (This fixes a non-compliant behavior. 
Applications relying on the previous, incorrect behavior might break, although 
that behavior was buggy to begin with.)
   
   * **Testing - Host details:** The host testing details are insufficient. 
Specify the OS, CPU architecture, and compiler version used for host testing. 
Example:  `Build Host: macOS Ventura (Intel), Apple clang version 14.0.0`.
   * **Testing - Consider additional architectures:**  Testing on a single 
architecture (rv-virt) is good, but testing on at least one more, especially a 
significantly different one (e.g., ARM), would strengthen the PR.
   * **Testing - Before Change Logs:** Include the *incorrect* output from the 
test application before the fix. This clearly demonstrates the problem being 
addressed.
   
   
   **Example of improved Impact Section:**
   
   ```
   ## Impact
   
   * Impact on user: YES (Users relying on the correct POSIX behavior of 
`wcsrtombs()` will see a change.  Previously, the function did not 
null-terminate the output string correctly in certain cases, leading to 
potential errors. This fix ensures correct null-termination, aligning with the 
standard.)
   * Impact on build: NO
   * Impact on hardware: YES (All architectures are affected, as this is a libc 
change.)
   * Impact on documentation: YES (The documentation for `wcsrtombs()` should 
be updated to reflect the corrected behavior.)
   * Impact on security:  MAYBE (Incorrect string termination *can* lead to 
security vulnerabilities like buffer overflows, depending on how the function 
is used. Further analysis is needed to determine the exact impact.  [Provide 
more detail about the analysis or state why it is difficult to assess.])
   * Impact on compatibility: YES (This fixes a non-compliant behavior.  
Applications relying on the previous, incorrect behavior might break, although 
that previous behavior was buggy and non-standard.)
   * Anything else to consider: None
   ```
   
   By addressing these points, the PR will be more complete and easier for 
reviewers to assess.  This improves the chances of a swift and successful merge.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to