Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 3B5676063F
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To:     Victor Bravo <1905@spmblk.com>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@broadcom.com>,
        Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@broadcom.com>,
        Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com>,
        Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com,
        brcm80211-dev-list@cypress.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] brcmfmac: sanitize DMI strings v2
References: <20190504162633.ldrz2nqfocg55grb@localhost>
        <cce7604e-2b02-80ed-1df5-6f304cada0cb@broadcom.com>
        <20190504194440.4zcxjrtj2aft3ka4@localhost>
        <16a87149068.2764.9b12b7fc0a3841636cfb5e919b41b954@broadcom.com>
        <20190505150355.3fbng4ny34x255vk@localhost>
        <0f75a3d4-94af-5503-94c3-e8af2364448d@redhat.com>
        <87o94gug81.fsf@codeaurora.org>
        <20190506091441.wqtccm4n6xxhxom2@localhost>
Date:   Mon, 06 May 2019 15:29:21 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20190506091441.wqtccm4n6xxhxom2@localhost> (Victor Bravo's
        message of "Mon, 6 May 2019 11:14:41 +0200")
Message-ID: <878svjvk9q.fsf@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Victor Bravo <1905@spmblk.com> writes:

> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:42:06AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> @@ -99,6 +107,15 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id dmi_platform_data[] = {
>> >>   	{}
>> >>   };
>> >>   +void brcmf_dmi_sanitize(char *dst, const unsigned char *allowed,
>> >> char safe)
>> >> +{
>> >> +	while (*dst) {
>> >> +		if ((*dst < 0) || !(allowed[*dst / 8] & (1 << (*dst % 8))))
>> >
>> > At a first look I have no clue what this code is doing and I honestly do not feel
>> > like figuring it out, this is clever, but IMHO not readable.
>> >
>> > Please just write this as if (*dst < 0x21 || (*dst > foo && < bar) || etc,
>> > so that a human can actually see in one look what the code is doing.
>> 
>> Is there an existing function for sanitising filenames so that we don't
>> need to reinvent the wheel, maybe something like isalnum()?
>
> I would definitely prefer to use existing function, but I didn't find
> any suitable one. Suggestions are welcome.

I didn't find anything either, but hopefully someone knows.

> As for implementation details, the one I posted was optimized for both
> speed and size, and at least in my opinion this bit array driven
> parametric implementation is exactly what is needed here (using a string
> of allowed characters with strchr-style lookups would bring much worse
> complexity, and checking the characters using series of hardcoded if
> conditions could quickly grow to more than those 16 bytes used by the
> array).

But is this really something which should be optimised? This is driver
initialisation, not in some hot path, right? Can you even measure the
difference?

-- 
Kalle Valo