Announcement

**Nathan Evans** · 1 Jul 2001, 05:37 AM

Steve,
The strings i load into an array are loaded fine and will search fine
InStr. However when some of them are passed to the ScanString function,
the program will completely illegalop and win2k writes an errorlog..
(not sure where it writes it though )

How fast is this ScanString function supposed to be? So far, i'm only
managing around 5-7 Mb/sec ??

My general declarations:

Code:

#COMPILE EXE
#DIM ALL
#INCLUDE "win32api.inc"

GLOBAL ayFileDef() AS STRING

Here is the function i am using to load my Definitions file.
The Definitions file is seperated by CRLF for each definition, then
each line is seperated into 3 sections by a Semicolon ";".
The first section is the parasite name, second is the type, and third
is the hexidecimal signiture.

Code:

FUNCTION LoadDB(lPerformanceOpenFile AS LONG, lPerformanceProcess AS LONG) AS LONG

 DIM szFileDef AS STRING, lPerformance AS LONG

 CALL fOpenFile("E:\WIN2K\Programming\Net-Commando V3\VirusIDENT\file.def", szFileDef, lPerformance)

  lPerformanceOpenFile = lPerformance

 DIM tC AS LONG
 tC  = GetTickCount

    IF LEN(szFileDef) <> 0 THEN

        DIM X AS LONG, Y AS LONG, FirstBound AS LONG, SecondBound AS LONG
        DIM tmpArray(0 TO 0) AS STRING, tmpArray2(0 TO 0) AS STRING
        DIM arrayData(0 TO 0) AS STRING, tmpData AS STRING, enumL AS LONG

        Split szFileDef, $CRLF, tmpArray()
        FirstBound = UBOUND(tmpArray)

         FOR X = 0 TO UBOUND(tmpArray())
             Split tmpArray(X), ";", tmpArray2()
             IF UBOUND(tmpArray2) > SecondBound THEN SecondBound = UBOUND(tmpArray2)
         NEXT

        ERASE ayFileDef
        REDIM ayFileDef(FirstBound - 1, SecondBound)

         FOR X = 0 TO FirstBound - 1

             Split tmpArray(X), ";", tmpArray2()

             FOR Y = LBOUND(tmpArray2) TO UBOUND(tmpArray2)
                ayFileDef(X, Y) = tmpArray2(Y)
             NEXT

              Split ayFileDef(X, 2), " ", arrayData()
              tmpData = ""
                  FOR enumL = LBOUND(arrayData) TO UBOUND(arrayData)
                      tmpData = tmpData & CHR$(VAL("&H" & arrayData(enumL)))
                      ayFileDef(X, 2) = tmpData
                  NEXT enumL
                ERASE arrayData

         NEXT

        ERASE tmpArray
        ERASE tmpArray2

    END IF

 lPerformanceProcess = GetTickCount - tC
 FUNCTION = (UBOUND(ayFileDef) - LBOUND(ayFileDef)) + 1

END FUNCTION

My AnalyseFile function opens the file in the szFile parameter.
This uses the ReadFile et al APIs, then uses PEEK to return the bytes as
a string. Then it enumerates through the DB of signitures i loaded
first in PBMAIN, and currently uses ScanString to hopefully find the signiture.

Code:

FUNCTION AnalyseFile(BYVAL szFile AS STRING, BYREF szAnalysis AS STRING, BYREF lPerformanceOpenFile AS LONG, BYREF lPerformanceProcess AS LONG, BYREF lSpeed AS LONG) AS SINGLE

    'Variables
    DIM tC AS LONG, enumI AS LONG
    DIM retVal AS LONG, MainStr AS STRING, SearchStr AS STRING
    LOCAL ap AS LONG, aln AS LONG, bpt AS LONG, bln AS LONG

    'Open the file and return statisitcal result to lPerformanceOpenFile BYREF
    CALL fReadFile(BYVAL szFile, BYREF MainStr, BYREF lPerformanceOpenFile)
    aln = LEN(MainStr)

    'Performance Counter
    tC = GetTickCount

    'Analysis for Virus Defintions
    FOR enumI = LBOUND(ayFileDef) TO UBOUND(ayFileDef)
        SearchStr = ayFileDef(enumI, 2)
        'MSGBOX SearchStr
            'ap  = STRPTR(MainStr)
            'aln = LEN(MainStr)
            'bpt = STRPTR(SearchStr)
            'bln = LEN(SearchStr)
        'rv& = ScanString(0,STRPTR(a$),aln&, STRPTR(patterns$(cnt)),LEN(patterns$(cnt)))
        retVal = ScanString(0, BYVAL STRPTR(MainStr), BYVAL aln, BYVAL STRPTR(SearchStr), BYVAL LEN(SearchStr))
        'retVal = ScanString(  0, ap, aln, bpt, bln  )
        'szAnalysis = szAnalysis & ", " & STR$(retVal)

        'retVal = INSTR(  1, MainStr, SearchStr  )
        'szAnalysis = szAnalysis & ", " & STR$(retVal)

        'retval = BMBinSearch(  0, BYVAL STRPTR(MainStr), BYVAL LEN(MainStr), BYVAL STRPTR(SearchStr), BYVAL LEN(SearchStr)  )
        'szAnalysis = szAnalysis & STR$(STRPTR(MainStr)) & " / " & STR$(STRPTR(SearchStr)) '", " & STR$(retVal)

          IF retVal > 2 THEN
             szAnalysis = szAnalysis & ayFileDef(enumI, 0) & " (" & ayFileDef(enumI, 1) & ")"
          END IF
    NEXT enumI

    lPerformanceProcess = GetTickCount - tC
    lSpeed = LEN(MainStr) / (lPerformanceProcess * 1000)

END FUNCTION

The problem here, is that on some of the signiture in the DB..
ScanString will not like it and the program will IllegalOp.
If i comment out the ScanString line and use InStr instead, it would
work fine.

I'm still not having any luck with the BM functions.

Btw: I realise the code is not best

Thanks steve,

- Nathan.

**Lance Edmonds** · 1 Jul 2001, 05:38 AM

Steve, did you notice my comments about INSTR being faster than the BM code? Can you test that exact code on your PC and tell me whether we are seeing a processor-specific effect on the results?

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

**Nathan Evans** · 1 Jul 2001, 06:50 AM

Steve, Lance..

I've got the BMBinSearch algo working finally!!!!

It's correctly identifying the test files i'm passing it!

I'll post some performance results in a moment..

Thanks guys!

- Nathan.

**Nathan Evans** · 1 Jul 2001, 07:20 AM

Before i post performance stats on the BMBinSearch..

My ReadFile sub, although atleast 50 times faster than the Visual Basic
equivilent , is fairly slow. Reading a 34mb file.. it took 939ms.

Code:

FUNCTION fReadFile(BYVAL szFile AS STRING, BYREF sBytes AS STRING, BYREF lPerformance AS LONG) AS SINGLE


    DIM tC AS LONG
    DIM hOrgFile AS LONG, bBytes() AS BYTE
    DIM nSize AS LONG, Ret AS LONG
    DIM enumI AS LONG

    'Performance Counter
    tC = GetTickCount

    'Open File to Byte Array
    hOrgFile = CreateFile(BYCOPY szFile$, %GENERIC_READ, %FILE_SHARE_READ + %FILE_SHARE_WRITE, BYVAL 0&, %OPEN_EXISTING, 0, 0)    'Get Handle to File
    nSize = GetFileSize(hOrgFile, 0)
        IF nSize = 0 OR nSize = -1 THEN EXIT FUNCTION

    SetFilePointer hOrgFile, 0, 0, %FILE_BEGIN
    REDIM bBytes(1 TO nSize) AS BYTE
    ReadFile hOrgFile, bBytes(1), UBOUND(bBytes), Ret, BYVAL 0&

    IF Ret <> UBOUND(bBytes) THEN EXIT FUNCTION
    CALL CloseHandle (hOrgFile)

        [b]sBytes = PEEK$(VARPTR(bBytes(LBOUND(bBytes))), UBOUND(bBytes))[/b]

    'Performance Counter
    lPerformance = GetTickCount - tC

END FUNCTION

The culprit is in the Byte Array to String conversion, on the line i highlighted.

I can't see anyway in optimising this, as it is reading directly from
memory. But i thought i'd put it to you anyway

Thanks

-Nathan

**Lance Edmonds** · 1 Jul 2001, 07:32 AM

I see you use UBOUND a couple of times, it would make sense to do that evaluation just once and store that in a local variable.

However, arrays are always slightly slower than using scalar variables, so if you can convert the code to use a scalar string it would be faster then doing that memory block copy.

Maybe something like this - it stores the data directly into the return string and eliminated the byte array completely (pseudocode - may need some alteration):

Code:

hOrgFile = CreateFile...
nSize = GetFileSize(hOrgFile, 0)        
IF nSize = 0 OR nSize = -1 THEN EXIT FUNCTION    
SetFilePointer hOrgFile, 0, 0, %FILE_BEGIN    
sBytes = space$(nSize) ' preallocate the buffer
ReadFile hOrgFile, BYVAL STRPTR(sBytes), nSize, Ret, BYVAL 0&
CALL CloseHandle (hOrgFile)        
EXIT FUNCTION

Using byte arrays is something that VB programmers often use, but often you'll find PowerBASIC has much better and faster ways to deal with it.

That said, it would be interesting to compare that API-based code to a generic PowerBASIC code:

Code:

' more pseudocode
OPEN "filename" FOR BINARY AS #1
IF ERR THEN EXIT FUNCTION
GET$ #1, LOF(1), sBytes
CLOSE #1

Further, since this sub just reads the file, it would make sense to take this code out of the function, and place it directly in the calling code block, thereby removing the overhead in calling the function and setting up it's stack, initializing variables, etc.

More food for thought for you...

I hope this helps!

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

**Nathan Evans** · 1 Jul 2001, 08:22 AM

Lance,

That worked a treat. I don't know why i overlooked it, but its now
reading it directly into a String - which is far more efficient
than reading to a byte array then converting it to a string afterwards.

My previous code took ~900ms to open a 34mb file, its now almost
half that at ~510ms.

I will experiment what you suggested about the call stack being wasted.
I realised this may be a problem, it's just that ReadFile function is going
to be used alot, by many different procedures - and i thought it would
be best if it was in its own function to save memory. But it actually
seems have a negative effect on that.. ?

The whole reason i jumped over to using the API instead of the built
in PB file i/o functions was because it would read some files but not others.
Never figured out why, the code was so simple - i don't think it could
of been any error on my part.

Here's the procedure i was using:

Code:

FUNCTION fOpenFile(BYVAL szFile AS STRING, BYREF sBytes AS STRING, BYREF lPerformance AS LONG) AS SINGLE

  LOCAL Fnum AS LONG, tC AS LONG

    'Performance Counter
    tC = GetTickCount

    'Find a FREEFILE
    Fnum = FREEFILE

    'Open file
     OPEN szFile FOR BINARY AS Fnum
        GET$ Fnum, LOF(Fnum), sBytes
     CLOSE Fnum

    'Performance Counter
    lPerformance = GetTickCount - tC

END FUNCTION

It would read some files, but not others. Never-ever got it to sucessfully
read a MP3 file..

cheers
-Nathan.

[This message has been edited by Nathan Evans (edited July 01, 2001).]

**Nathan Evans** · 1 Jul 2001, 09:13 AM

All:
So what method must i use to get up to the 300Mb/sec searching speeds?

I was thinking, maybe if i run multiple BMBinSearch's in say 10 threads..
the results may come quicker.

-Nathan.

[This message has been edited by Nathan Evans (edited July 01, 2001).]

**Michael Mattias** · 1 Jul 2001, 02:20 PM

I was thinking, maybe if i run multiple BMBinSearch's in say 10 threads..
the results may come quicker.

Nope. The machine only has so many CPU cycles per second.

If you ran ten threads, you'd get ten times as many answers all at once, but in ten times the time.

Closely related: Winston Churchill's (attributed) comment, "It takes nine months to have a baby, regardless of the number of women assigned to the job."

MCM

**Steve Hutchesson** · 1 Jul 2001, 03:20 PM

Lance,

I checked the code you tested and it was the function ScanString
which is a byte scanner of a similar type to the code used in
INSTR and I got some interesting results on my 2 different boxes,
on the PIII the ScanString function was about 30% faster but on my
AMD 550 INSTR was nearly twice as fast.

The Boyer Moore has different logic so the comparison is not a lot
of use, if the search pattern is long enough (over 6 characters)
it is almost exclusively faster and with longer patterns, faster
by a long way over any BYTE scanner.

The reason why I recommend INSTR in most normal instances is because
its performance is more than adequate in most instances and it is
a lot more flexible to use. Most of the search algorithms I have
developed have been written in MASM where you have no runtime library
at all. Fortunately porting them across to PowerBASIC is easy enough
because the inline assembler can handle MASM format with only very
minor notation changes.

Nathan,

From a quick look at your code, the problems you are having with
speed is related to the amount of overhead you have processing the
virus signatures. I would suggest that you try a different way of
storing the data and preload it as the program starts.

Code:

    sig$(0) = chr$(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
    sig$(1) = chr$(9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)  etc ....

The technique using CHR$ can handle any BYTE data with no problems
and this technique once loaded at startup has no overhead. If the scan
finds a virus signature, it can use the array index to look up another
array that has the virus names in it.

Code:

    vname$(0) = "BadGuy1"
    vname$(1) = "Idiot_Fringe2"    etc ....

This means you only process the name if a signature is found so
you are doing a lot less work if no signature is found.

If you have a list of virus signatures in binary rather than in HEX
it is easy enough to write yourself a small utility that reads the
BYTE data from each signature and converts it into the CHR$ format
I suggested so you can automate the process. This would be useful
as you add more signatures over time.

Regards,

[email protected]

------------------

**Nathan Evans** · 2 Jul 2001, 03:29 AM

Steve,

I am loading the DB into memory when the program starts. It's not
processing from the DB as it analyses a file..

Is it normal for BMBinSearch to take 140ms for just one search on a
34mb EXE file ?

There is currently only 30 test signitures in the DB, and to analyse
that entire 34mb with all 30, takes 4160ms !!

Maybe it will search faster if i split the files up into chunks?

-Nathan.

**Steve Hutchesson** · 2 Jul 2001, 04:18 AM

Nathan,

By a quick calculation, 34 meg in 140 ms is 242 meg/sec which is
by no means slow. The other thing to be aware of is that the first
read of the memory will be slower than subsequent reads so the next
ones will be a lot faster.

I don't know what the machine you are using is so let us know as this
is some indication of whether the code is working OK or not.

Regards,

[email protected]

------------------

**Nathan Evans** · 2 Jul 2001, 06:40 AM

Steve,

I'm developing on and testing this code on a Athlon 700mhz, 512ram, win2k.

I have noticed the performance increases on uncompressed file formats, such as BMP..
After i got my lSpeed calculation right, your right - it is infact scanning
at a minimum of 200mb/sec, and with some files will burst upto 700mb/sec..
but the general average seems to be 200-300mb/sec..

Can you explain why subsequent searches are faster? tah

-Nathan.

**Steve Hutchesson** · 2 Jul 2001, 06:56 AM

Nathan,

Subsequent reads are faster mainly due to cacheing, you normally
get what you call a first time penalty reading data but once it
is immediate in memory, subsequent reads are a lot faster.

Speed differences with an algorithm like a Boyer Moore are effected
by pattern length, character frequency and repeat sequences. If the
data being searched is using a wide number of characters, you have
the best chance of getting a bad character shift which jumps the
largest amount forward.

It is to your advantage to use the longest search patterns possible
as this will maximise your speed. If you are happy with the BM
algorithm and it is testing up reliable with the list of search
patterns that you are using, I will post a later more compact version
that may be slightly faster in some circumstances.

Regards,

[email protected]

------------------

**Nathan Evans** · 2 Jul 2001, 08:06 AM

Steve,

Subsequent reads are faster mainly due to cacheing, you normally
get what you call a first time penalty reading data but once it
is immediate in memory, subsequent reads are a lot faster.

Okay, that's good then

Speed differences with an algorithm like a Boyer Moore are effected
by pattern length, character frequency and repeat sequences. If the
data being searched is using a wide number of characters, you have
the best chance of getting a bad character shift which jumps the
largest amount forward.

Thanks for the tip, i will ensure that the definitions are atleast 40bytes.
What would be the result of a 'bad character shift'? Would it return -1, or just take longer
to search? What can be done to prevent this?

If you are happy with the BM algorithm and it is testing up reliable with the list of search
patterns that you are using, I will post a later more compact version
that may be slightly faster in some circumstances.

Steve, i'm VERY happy now that i know my scanspeed is comparable to
or even better than some of the top-name brand scanners
If you optimise your BM code any further, let me know!

Thanks Steve

- Nathan.

**Nathan Evans** · 2 Jul 2001, 09:54 AM

Karl,
Thank you for your comments.

Can you direct me to that BOYER.BAS you mentioned? I've spent 15 mins trying
to find it on the powerbasic.com downloads section but so far unsuccesful.
I think Steve's algo is almost as good as it gets, but i'm inclined to
test as many algo's as possible

My data stream is certain - it will always be of executable code.
ie: EXE, DLL. Once i'm done.. my Function won't even bother to scan
say a JPEG or BMP file - as they are not executable. I'll do this by
checking the File Header.

I disagree that InStr is simply all-round better.. InStr runs at a fraction
of the speed Steve's BMBinSearch algo does! In my tests, InStr was running
at around 7Mb/sec, whereas Steve's is around 200-300Mb/sec average.

Thanks.

- Nathan.

**Tom Hanlin** · 2 Jul 2001, 11:37 AM

The point is, Boyer-Moore isn't guaranteed to be faster. That depends entirely
on the nature of the search.

The Jackson/Abrash version is for PB/DOS. It should be in the PB/DOS area of
the Downloads section, probably under "Library" or "Misc".

------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

**Nathan Evans** · 2 Jul 2001, 12:01 PM

Tom,

I realise that a Boyer Moore search on small files, or with small search
strings would be much slower than an equivilent search with InStr.

But in the case of my program, i will be searching files from 5kb upwards, using
search strings of atleast 40bytes.
InStr may outperform BoyerMoore with smaller files, ie: below 20kb..

I have already noticed how much BoyerMoore is dependant on larger files and larger
search strings, searching a 70kb file runs at around 200Mb/sec, whereas a 500kb file
runs at around 400Mb/sec.

I will give the Jackson/Abrash BM a go.

- Nathan

**Steve Hutchesson** · 2 Jul 2001, 04:35 PM

A couple of things here, Tom has made a valid point in that no
particular algorithm, Boyer Moore included is garranteed to be
faster in every instance. It is slower on very short source text
and with search patterns under 6 bytes long, there are cases where
certain patterns of repeat characters will slow down a Boyer Moore
algorithm but in most instances, the data is rarely in such a format.

At an empirical level with large files and search patterns over 6
bytes in length a Boyer Moore algo is almost exclusively faster and
the speed increases as the pattern gets longer.

The original algorithm by Michael Abrash in MASM and its port to
DOS PowerBASIC works fine in DOS but its design is out of date in
32 bit code so I would not hold out any great hope of getting it
up to speed. I have a version of it re-written by Jeremy Collake
which I have tweaked to fit MASM library format with his permission
that uses that design but I have yet to be able to successfully
port it to PowerBASIC.

Here is a size optimised version of the last BM algo that I posted,
it has a shorter instruction path in the loop code but it does not
test up faster in direct linear read speed although it is a bit faster
where there are a large number of partial matches.

Same comment as with the last one, it performs well in testing but
I cannot verify that it gets all matches so test the list of pattern
with INSTR to make sure you get all of the matches in the source file.

Just a note on the speed of INSTR, I can reliably get it to work
at over 100 meg/sec so the problem you had with it reading slowly
was related to the overhead in the code you were testing, INSTR is
a classic byte scanner and has very good average performance over
a wide range of search requirements. On your Athlon 700 you should
be getting between 120 and 150 meg/sec with it if the rest of the
code is working OK.

Regards,

[email protected]

Code:

  ' #########################################################################
  
  FUNCTION BMBinSearch(ByVal startpos as LONG, _
                       ByVal lpSource as LONG,ByVal srcLngth as LONG, _
                       ByVal lpSubStr as LONG,ByVal subLngth as LONG) as LONG
  
      #REGISTER NONE
  
      LOCAL cval    as DWORD
      LOCAL shift_table as STRING * 1024
  
      ! cmp subLngth, 1
      ! jg OKsize
      ! mov eax, -2                 ; string too short, must be > 1
      ! jmp Cleanup
    OKsize:
  
      ! mov esi, lpSource
      ! add esi, srcLngth
      ! sub esi, subLngth
      ! mov ebx, esi            ; set Exit Length
  
    ' ----------------------------------------
    ' load shift table with value in subLngth
    ' ----------------------------------------
      ! mov ecx, 256
      ! mov eax, subLngth
      ! lea edi, shift_table
      ! rep stosd
  
    ' ----------------------------------------------
    ' load decending count values into shift table
    ' ----------------------------------------------
      ! mov ecx, subLngth           ; SubString length in ECX
      ! dec ecx                     ; correct for zero based index
      ! mov esi, lpSubStr           ; address of SubString in ESI
      ! lea edi, shift_table
  
      ! xor eax, eax
  
    Write_Shift_Chars:
      ! mov al, [esi]               ; get the character
      ! inc esi
      ! mov [edi+eax*4], ecx        ; write shift for each character
      ! dec ecx                     ; to ascii location in table
      ! jnz Write_Shift_Chars
  
    ' -----------------------------
    ' set up for main compare loop
    ' -----------------------------
      ! mov ecx, subLngth
      ! dec ecx
      ! mov cval, ecx
  
      ! mov esi, lpSource
      ! mov edi, lpSubStr
      ! add esi, startpos           ; add starting position
  
      ! mov edx, subLngth           ; pattern length in edx
  
      ! jmp Cmp_Loop
  
  ' *********************** Loop Code ***************************
  
    Suffix_Shift:
      ! add esi, eax                ; add suffix shift
  
    Pre_Cmp:
      ! mov ecx, cval               ; reset counter in compare loop
      ! cmp esi, ebx                ; test exit length
      ! jg  No_Match
  
      ! xor eax, eax                ; zero EAX
  
    Cmp_Loop:
      ! mov al, [esi+ecx]
      ! cmp al, [edi+ecx]           ; cmp characters in ESI / EDI
      ! jne Set_Shift               ; if not equal, get next shift
      ! dec ecx
      ! jns Cmp_Loop
  
      ! jmp Match
  
    Set_Shift:
      ! mov eax, shift_table[eax*4] ; get char shift value
      ! cmp eax, edx                ; is it pattern length ?
      ! jne Suffix_Shift            ; if not, jump to Suffix_Shift
      ! lea esi, [esi+ecx+1]        ; add bad char shift
      ! jmp Pre_Cmp
  
  ' ***************************************************************
  
    Match:
      ! sub esi, lpSource           ; sub source from ESI
      ! mov eax, esi                ; put length in eax
      ! jmp Cleanup
  
    No_Match:
      ! mov eax, -1                 ; set value for no match
  
    Cleanup:
  
      ! mov FUNCTION, eax
  
  END FUNCTION
  
  ' #########################################################################

------------------

[This message has been edited by Steve Hutchesson (edited July 02, 2001).]

**Nathan Evans** · 3 Jul 2001, 01:16 AM

Steve,

I will give that new function ago and see how it compares up to
your last one

I was calculating the InStr speeds incorrectly, as i didn't Multiply the sum
by how many Searches it had performed - that is why i thought it was
searching at ~7mb/sec After correcting that, your right - its around
200Mb/sec.

BTW: I've been reading up on BM, and have a clearer understanding of its
somewhat clever logic

- Nathan.

Announcement

Fast string searching

Fast string searching

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment