Re: [PATCH] Make dmi_name_in_vendors more focused

Jesse Barnes
2011-11-10T04:39:44Z

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