Re: [PATCH 2.2] i386/dmi_scan updates

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 23:19, Jean Delvare wrote:
> This check has been removed in 2.4 though. I think it was needed when we were 
> trusting the structure count (see version 1.1 of dmidecode) instead of
> also verifying we weren't running of the table. Now that this check is
> done, I don't see why we would need the heuristic anymore.

True - btw word wrap is broken on your mailer

> Also note that the white spaces check has been removed from 2.4.

The debug data can basically go

> A better way IMHO would be to "secure" the dmi_string function. If we can 
ensure it will always return a safe (that is, null terminated) string, we are done. Agreed?

I'd ascii filter it as well but yes. The length one I dont think is a
problem because the table length will gie us a defined worst case