From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44863)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZKS7N-00085s-7g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:14:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZKS7J-0007Fz-DD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:14:01 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40621)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZKS7J-0007Fk-8n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:13:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:13:52 +0100
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150729141352.GF16847@redhat.com>
References: <019001d0c9fd$d3268410$79738c30$@samsung.com>
	<20150729133459.GE16847@redhat.com>
	<01b801d0ca08$05e335b0$11a9a110$@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01b801d0ca08$05e335b0$11a9a110$@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Do not use slow [*] expansion for GPIO
 creation
Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Cc: 'Paolo Bonzini' <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 'QEMU Developers' <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, 'Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber'?= <afaerber@suse.de>, 'Markus Armbruster' <armbru@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:08:18PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello!
> 
> > > +    l = strlen(name);
> > > +    propname = g_malloc(l + 13); /* 10 characters for UINT_MAX plus "[]" */
> > > +    memcpy(propname, name, l);
> > 
> > Please don't do manual string length calculations in combination with
> > unbounded sprintf calls. It is a recipe for future security bugs.
> 
> [skip]
> 
> > >      for (i = gpio_list->num_in; i < gpio_list->num_in + n; i++) {
> > > +        g_sprintf(&propname[l], "[%u]", i);
> > 
> > Replace this with
> > 
> >     gchar *propname = g_strdup_printf("%s[%u]", name, i)
> > 
> > >          object_property_add_child(OBJECT(dev), propname,
> > >                                    OBJECT(gpio_list->in[i]), &error_abort);
> > 
> >     g_free(propname);
> 
>  IMHO it's not really good because of repeating allocation-free. This
>  is not VERY slow, but still slower than it could be (imagine that this
>  repeats ~1000 times).

Unless this repeated allocation overhead is illustrated to be a real world
problem, I think using g_strdup_printf is preferrable.

>  I have a better idea instead. What if instead:
> 
> propname = g_malloc(l + 13); /* 10 characters for UINT_MAX plus "[]" */
> 
>  i do:
> 
> propname = g_strdup_printf("%s[%u]", name, -1)
> 
>  ? This will automatically give me a buffer to fit in the largest possible integer.

I think it is premature/unneccesary optimization unless there are bench
marks to show this is a real world problem.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|