Zhao Zhili:
>
>
>> On Jun 16, 2025, at 19:03, Andreas Rheinhardt
>> <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> Zhao Zhili:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 2025, at 17:46, Andreas Rheinhardt
>>>> <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Zhao Zhili:
>>>>> From: Zhao Zhili <zhiliz...@tencent.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> tests/checkasm/h264dsp.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tests/checkasm/h264dsp.c b/tests/checkasm/h264dsp.c
>>>>> index f5f9650224..a0f8fd858a 100644
>>>>> --- a/tests/checkasm/h264dsp.c
>>>>> +++ b/tests/checkasm/h264dsp.c
>>>>> @@ -328,25 +328,35 @@ static void check_idct_multiple(void)
>>>>> static void check_idct_dequant(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> static const int depths[5] = { 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 };
>>>>> - LOCAL_ALIGNED_16(int16_t, src, [16]);
>>>>> - /* Ensure dst buffers are large enough to hold dctcoefs of all
>>>>> bit-depths. */
>>>>> + /* Ensure buffers are large enough to hold dctcoefs of all
>>>>> bit-depths. */
>>>>> + LOCAL_ALIGNED_16(uint8_t, src_buf, [16 * sizeof(int32_t)]);
>>>>> LOCAL_ALIGNED_16(uint8_t, dst0, [16 * 16 * sizeof(int32_t)]);
>>>>> LOCAL_ALIGNED_16(uint8_t, dst1, [16 * 16 * sizeof(int32_t)]);
>>>>> + int16_t *src = (int16_t *)src_buf;
>>>>> int16_t *dst_ref = (int16_t *)dst0;
>>>>> int16_t *dst_new = (int16_t *)dst1;
>>>>> H264DSPContext h;
>>>>> int bit_depth, i, qmul;
>>>>> declare_func_emms(AV_CPU_FLAG_MMX | AV_CPU_FLAG_SSE2, void, int16_t
>>>>> *output, int16_t *input, int qmul);
>>>>>
>>>>> - for (int j = 0; j < 16; j++)
>>>>> - src[j] = (rnd() % 512) - 256;
>>>>> -
>>>>> qmul = rnd() % 4096;
>>>>>
>>>>> for (i = 0; i < FF_ARRAY_ELEMS(depths); i++) {
>>>>> bit_depth = depths[i];
>>>>> ff_h264dsp_init(&h, bit_depth, 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (bit_depth == 8) {
>>>>> + for (size_t j = 0; j < 16; j++) {
>>>>> + int16_t r = (rnd() % 512) - 256;
>>>>> + AV_WN16A(&src_buf[j << 1], r);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + for (size_t j = 0; j < 16; j++) {
>>>>> + int32_t r = (rnd() % (1 << (bit_depth + 1))) - (1 <<
>>>>> bit_depth);
>>>>> + AV_WN32A(&src_buf[j << 2], r);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> memset(dst0, 0, 16 * 16 * SIZEOF_COEF);
>>>>> memset(dst1, 0, 16 * 16 * SIZEOF_COEF);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This still has an effective-type violation: src_buf is of type uint8_t,
>>>> yet the ff_h264_luma_dc_dequant_idct functions will read it as
>>>> int16_t/int32_t. It also still has the downside that buffer overflows
>>>> for the 8bit case can go undetected.
>>>
>>> A bunch of template has cast like
>>>
>>> pixel *dst = (pixel *)_dst;
>>> const pixel *src = (const pixel *)_src;
>>>
>>> then read and write as int16_t.
>>>
>>> And a bunch of checkasm use uint8_t[] array on stack as src and dst,
>>> which leading to UB.
>>>
>>> This patch isn’t specific. And this patch add zero UB (it’s there before
>>> the patch,
>>> both src and dst are accessed as int32_t/int16_t while they are int16_t and
>>> uint8_t).
>>>
>>
>> This patch adds UB: src was int16_t before, so that the accesses in the
>> eight bit function were fine, but are not with this patch. Anyway, it is
>> irrelevant now.
>
> Why it suddenly becomes a big problem access to properly aligned uint8_t *?
>
> I don’t mind to discuss the rules regarding to these violating of strict
> aliasing,
> especially in checkasm. But why it suddenly becomes a rule blocking a patch
> trying to fix a fate failure.
>
> I don’t buy the reason "the accesses in the eight bit function were fine”.
>
The effective type violation goes hand in hand with using a too big
buffer for the smaller type, making the test less strict. This is an
issue that checkasm should worry about (the effective type violation
itself is not that important).
Anyway, have you seen my patch?
- Andreas
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
