Where your mask is a multiple of 8 bits, your search becomes a relatively trivial byte comparison and any substring search algorithm will suffice (I would not recommend converting to a string and using the built in search, since you will likely suffer from failed character validation issues.)
sequence = <list of 8-bit integers>
mask = [0b10010001, 0b01101101]
matches = my_substring_search(sequence, mask)
For a mask of greater than 8 bits but not a multiple of eight, I would suggest truncating the mask to a multiple of 8 and using the same substring search as above. Then for any matches found, you can test the remainder.
sequence = <list of 8-bit integers>
mask_a = [0b10010001]
mask_b = 0b01100000
mask_b_pattern = 0b11110000 # relevant bits of mask_b
matches = my_substring_search(sequence, mask_a)
for match in matches:
if (sequence[match+len(mask_a)] & mask_b_pattern) == mask_b:
valid_match = True # or something more useful...
If sequence
is a list of 4096 bytes, you may need to account for the overlap between sections. This can be easily done by making sequence
a list of 4096+ceil(mask_bits/8.0)
bytes, but still advancing by only 4096 each time you read the next block.
As a demonstration of generating and using these masks:
class Mask(object):
def __init__(self, source, source_mask):
self._masks = list(self._generate_masks(source, source_mask))
def match(self, buffer, i, j):
return any(m.match(buffer, i, j) for m in self._masks)
class MaskBits(object):
def __init__(self, pre, pre_mask, match_bytes, post, post_mask):
self.match_bytes = match_bytes
self.pre, self.pre_mask = pre, pre_mask
self.post, self.post_mask = post, post_mask
def __repr__(self):
return '(%02x %02x) (%s) (%02x %02x)' % (self.pre, self.pre_mask,
', '.join('%02x' % m for m in self.match_bytes),
self.post, self.post_mask)
def match(self, buffer, i, j):
return (buffer[i:j] == self.match_bytes and
buffer[i-1] & self.pre_mask == self.pre and
buffer[j] & self.post_mask == self.post)
def _generate_masks(self, src, src_mask):
pre_mask = 0
pre = 0
post_mask = 0
post = 0
while pre_mask != 0xFF:
src_bytes = []
for i in (24, 16, 8, 0):
if (src_mask >> i) & 0xFF == 0xFF:
src_bytes.append((src >> i) & 0xFF)
else:
post_mask = (src_mask >> i) & 0xFF
post = (src >> i) & 0xFF
break
yield self.MaskBits(pre, pre_mask, src_bytes, post, post_mask)
pre += pre
pre_mask += pre_mask
if src & 0x80000000: pre |= 0x00000001
pre_mask |= 0x00000001
src = (src & 0x7FFFFFFF) * 2
src_mask = (src_mask & 0x7FFFFFFF) * 2
This code is not a complete search algorithm, it forms part of validating matches. The Mask object is constructed with a source value and a source mask, both left aligned and (in this implementation) 32-bits long:
src = 0b11101011011011010101001010100000
src_mask = 0b11111111111111111111111111100000
The buffer is a list of byte values:
buffer_1 = [0x7e, 0xb6, 0xd5, 0x2b, 0x88]
A Mask object generates an internal list of shifted masks:
>> m = Mask(src, src_mask)
>> m._masks
[(00 00) (eb, 6d, 52) (a0 e0),
(01 01) (d6, da, a5) (40 c0),
(03 03) (ad, b5, 4a) (80 80),
(07 07) (5b, 6a, 95) (00 00),
(0e 0f) (b6, d5) (2a fe),
(1d 1f) (6d, aa) (54 fc),
(3a 3f) (db, 54) (a8 f8),
(75 7f) (b6, a9) (50 f0)]
The middle element is the exact match substring (there is no neat way to get this out of this object as is, but it's m._masks[i].match_bytes
). Once you have used an efficient algorithm to find this subsequence, you can verify the surrounding bits using m.match(buffer, i, j)
, where i
is the index of first matching byte and j
is the index of the byte after the last matching byte (such that buffer[i:j] == match_bytes
).
In buffer
above, the bit sequence can be found starting at bit 5, which means that _masks[4].match_bytes
can be found at buffer[1:3]
. As a result:
>> m.match(buffer, 1, 3)
True
(Feel free to use, adapt, modify, sell or torture this code in any way possible. I quite enjoyed putting it together - an interesting problem - though I won't be held liable for any bugs, so make sure you test it thoroughly!)
[1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, ...]
or string"1001000..."
? Or is it a list of (specified bit-width) integers? Also, if performance is a concern, you can make a pretty solid argument against Python to whoever is forcing you to use it. Otherwise, you must sacrifice performance for the benefits in expression you get. - Zooba