Hi Ben,

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:16 PM GMT, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Daniel Alvarez Sanchez reported a significant overall speedup in ovn-northd
> due to a similar patch.
>
> Reported-by: Daniel Alvarez Sanchez <dalva...@redhat.com>
> Reported-at: 
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-February/046120.html
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> ---
>  lib/util.c | 39 +++++++++++++--------------------------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/util.c b/lib/util.c
> index a4d22df0c359..2e7765e41f03 100644
> --- a/lib/util.c
> +++ b/lib/util.c
> @@ -843,32 +843,19 @@ str_to_double(const char *s, double *d)
>  int
>  hexit_value(int c)
>  {
> -    switch (c) {
> -    case '0': case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4':
> -    case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8': case '9':
> -        return c - '0';
> -
> -    case 'a': case 'A':
> -        return 0xa;
> -
> -    case 'b': case 'B':
> -        return 0xb;
> -
> -    case 'c': case 'C':
> -        return 0xc;
> -
> -    case 'd': case 'D':
> -        return 0xd;
> -
> -    case 'e': case 'E':
> -        return 0xe;
> -
> -    case 'f': case 'F':
> -        return 0xf;
> -
> -    default:
> -        return -1;
> -    }
> +    static const signed char tbl[UCHAR_MAX + 1] = {
> +#define TBL(x)                                  \
> +        (  x >= '0' && x <= '9' ? x - '0'       \
> +         : x >= 'a' && x <= 'f' ? x - 'a' + 0xa \
> +         : x >= 'A' && x <= 'F' ? x - 'A' + 0xa \
> +         : -1)
> +#define TBL0(x)  TBL(x),  TBL((x) + 1),   TBL((x) + 2),   TBL((x) + 3)
> +#define TBL1(x) TBL0(x), TBL0((x) + 4),  TBL0((x) + 8),  TBL0((x) + 12)
> +#define TBL2(x) TBL1(x), TBL1((x) + 16), TBL1((x) + 32), TBL1((x) + 48)
> +        TBL2(0), TBL2(64), TBL2(128), TBL2(192)
> +    };
> +
> +    return tbl[c];
>  }
>
>  /* Returns the integer value of the 'n' hexadecimal digits starting at 's', 
> or

It caught my attention that the contract with hexit_value() callers has
changed.  Previously we had a catch-all clause for out-of-range values.
Now there will be an out-of-bounds read.

Perhaps a check if input is in range would be in place?
Or some kind of input sanitization like in the original patch?

WDYT?
-Jakub
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to