Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:35:20 +0100 | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Make dmi_name_in_vendors more focused |
| |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:25:57 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:26:47 +0100 > Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote: > > > The current implementation of dmi_name_in_vendors() is an invitation > > to lazy coding and false positives [1]. Searching for a string in 8 > > different DMI fields is something nobody should ever need to do. You > > know what you're looking for, so you should know where to look. > > strstr isn't fast, especially when it fails, so we should avoid > > calling it when it just can't succeed. > > > > Looking at the current users of the function, it seems clear to me > > that they are looking for a system or board vendor name, so let's > > limit dmi_name_in_vendors to these two DMI fields. This much better > > matches the function name, BTW. > > > > [1] We currently have code looking for short names in DMI data, such > > as "IBM" or "ASUS". I let you guess what will happen the day other > > vendors ship products named, for example, "SCHREIBMEISTER" or > > "PEGASUS". > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> > > Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > > --- > > This patch was already sent on 2011-05-15. I thought Andrew had > > picked it up but apparently not, otherwise it should already be > > upstream by now. > > I did merge it in May and have carried it in -mm (and hence in > linux-next) since then. I have sent it to Jesse at least twice, with > no effect.
I don't generally look after DMI stuff... I can queue it though if you want. My only worry is potential breakage for existing DMI matches, but it looks like Jean already did the audit for that.
Jesse
| |