Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] VP9 codec V4L2 control interface | From | Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <> | Date | Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:33:31 +0100 |
| |
Hi Hans,
W dniu 17.11.2021 o 11:51, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz pisze: > Hi again, > > W dniu 17.11.2021 o 11:49, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz pisze: >> Hi, >> >> W dniu 17.11.2021 o 10:59, Hans Verkuil pisze: >>> On 16/11/2021 14:14, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> W dniu 16.11.2021 o 09:21, Hans Verkuil pisze: >>>>> On 16/11/2021 09:09, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: >>>>>> Hi Hans, >>>>>> >>>>>> W dniu 15.11.2021 o 22:16, Hans Verkuil pisze: >>>>>>> On 15/11/2021 18:14, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Hans, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> W dniu 15.11.2021 o 16:07, Hans Verkuil pisze: >>>>>>>>> Andrzej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you rebase this series on top of the master branch of >>>>>>>>> https://git.linuxtv.org/media_stage.git/ ? Unfortunately this v7 no longer >>>>>>>>> applies. Specifically "rkvdec: Add the VP9 backend" failed in a >>>>>>>>> non-trivial >>>>>>>>> manner. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a branch for you: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.collabora.com/linux/for-upstream/-/tree/vp9-uapi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm getting a bunch of sparse/smatch warnings: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for finding this, I will re-create the branch and let you know on irc. >>>>>> Some of the below are "false positives, namely: >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/omap3isp.h >>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h >>>>> >>>>> Ah, sorry, I though I had filtered those out. Obviously you can ignore those. >>>>> >>>>> Please post a v8. That way the series is archived on lore. And it works better >>>>> with patchwork. >>>> >>>> Sure, no problem. Also please see below. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Hans >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> which are not touched by the series. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrzej >>>>>> >>>>>>> sparse: >>>>>>> rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c:190:43: warning: variable 'dec_params' set but not >>>>>>> used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >>>>>>> rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c:245:43: warning: variable 'dec_params' set but not >>>>>>> used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >>>>>>> SPARSE:hantro/hantro_postproc.c hantro/hantro_postproc.c:37:35: warning: >>>>>>> symbol 'hantro_g1_postproc_regs' was not declared. Should it be static? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> smatch: >>>>>>> rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c:190:43: warning: variable 'dec_params' set but not >>>>>>> used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >>>>>>> rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c:245:43: warning: variable 'dec_params' set but not >>>>>>> used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >>>>>>> rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c: rkvdec/rkvdec-vp9.c:236 init_intra_only_probs() >>>>>>> error: buffer overflow 'ptr' 90 <= 91 >>>> >>>> this looks a false positive. >>>> >>>> A portion of memory pointed to by ptr is indexed with i * 23 + m, >>>> where i ranges from 0 to 3, inclusive, and m ranges from 0 to 22, >>>> inclusive if i < 3, otherwise m ranges from 0 to 20, inclusive. >>>> So the largest index value we compute equals 89 (3 * 23 + 20). >>>> Because ptr points to something that is at least 90 bytes large, >>>> 89 is a valid index and no greater index will be ever computed. >>> >>> But we do need to get rid of this smatch warning, otherwise it will pollute the >>> list of smatch warnings. >>> >>> I was looking at the code and wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to >>> move writing to rkprobs->intra_mode[i].uv_mode[] into a separate for loop: >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob); i++) >>> rkprobs->intra_mode[i / 23].uv_mode[i % 23] = >>> v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob[i]; >>> >>> Wouldn't that do the same as the current code? It looks simpler as well. >>> >> >> I think it would, but I would slightly change the loop: >> >> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob); i++) { > > actually, sizeof(v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob) > > > >> const u8 *ptr = (const u8 *)v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob; >> >> rkprobs->intra_mode[i / 23].uv_mode[i % 23] = ptr[i]; >> } >> >> because v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob is actually a u8[10][9]. >> >> I will make such a change locally and test whether it causes regressions.
This worked, no regressions:
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob); ++i) { const u8 *ptr = (const u8 *)v4l2_vp9_kf_uv_mode_prob;
rkprobs->intra_mode[i / 23].uv_mode[i % 23] = ptr[i]; }
Andrzej
| |