On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 06:29:48AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 1 Sept 2026 at 08:03, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 07:47:36AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Naveen, > > > > > > On 2026-09-01T10:23:25, Naveen Kumar Chaudhary <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > bootstage: fix unchecked malloc and undersized buffer in > > > > bootstage_mark_code() > > > > > > > > bootstage_mark_code() allocated the label buffer without checking the > > > > result and then dereferenced it, risking a NULL pointer crash on > > > > allocation failure. The length calculation also failed to account for > > > > the "," and ": " separators emitted by the snprintf() calls, so the > > > > assembled string could be silently truncated. Additionally, when file > > > > and func are NULL and linenum is -1, the buffer was passed on > > > > uninitialized. > > > > > > Please rewrite in present tense per U-Boot / Linux convention, e.g. > > > 'allocates the label buffer without checking the result', 'fails to > > > account for', 'is passed on uninitialised'. This patch aims to change > > > the current code. > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > As I said the other day, please stop telling people to rewrite their > > commit messages when it's already clear and understandable. This simply > > leads to confusion and frustration among our contributors. > > Then do we need to change this? > > https://docs.u-boot-project.org/en/latest/develop/sending_patches.html#commit-message-conventions
No, it's conventions and guidelines. One should do that. And if there's no commit message, or there's barely anything in a commit message, that's useful. But if someone wrote something, and what they wrote matches what they did, that's what's important. > Also, we could perhaps introduce an AGENTS.md file, so at least the AI > assistants follow the guidelines? AI assistants are a bad at writing commit messages to start with. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
