Hi Sylwester,
On Monday 26 August 2013 11:32:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]> escreveu:
> > On 08/08/2013 02:35 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 August 2013 14:14:30 Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > >> On 8/7/2013 12:44 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Monday 12 November 2012 12:35:35 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>> On Friday 09 November 2012 15:33:22 Pawel Osciak wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>>> For output buffers application provide to the kernel the number of
> > >>>>>> bytes they stored in each plane of the buffer. Verify that the
> > >>>>>> value is smaller than or equal to the plane length.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>> Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Acked-by: Pawel Osciak <[email protected]>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You're listed, as well as Marek and Kyungmin, as videobuf2
> > >>>> maintainers. When you ack a videobuf2 patch, should we assume that
> > >>>> you will take it in your git tree ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Ping ? I'd like to get this patch in v3.12, should I send a pull
> > >>> request ?
> > >>
> > >> Acked-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> > >>
> > >> Feel free to include it in your pull-request. I'm sorry for so huge
> > >> delay in my response.
> > >
> > > No worries. I'll send a pull request to Mauro.
> > >
> > >>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 39
> > >>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>>>> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Changes compared to v1:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - Sanity check the data_offset value for each plane.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> > >>>>>> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c index 432df11..479337d
> > >>>>>> 100644
> > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> > >>>>>> @@ -296,6 +296,41 @@ static int __verify_planes_array(struct
> > >>>>>> vb2_buffer
> > >>>>>> *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer>
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> /**
> > >>>>>> + * __verify_length() - Verify that the bytesused value for each
> > >>>>>> plane
> > >>>>>> fits in
> > >>>>>> + * the plane length and that the data offset doesn't exceed the
> > >>>>>> bytesused value.
> > >>>>>> + */
> > >>>>>> +static int __verify_length(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct
> > >>>>>> v4l2_buffer *b)
> > >>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>> + unsigned int length;
> > >>>>>> + unsigned int plane;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + if (!V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(b->type))
> > >>>>>> + return 0;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + if (V4L2_TYPE_IS_MULTIPLANAR(b->type)) {
> > >>>>>> + for (plane = 0; plane < vb->num_planes; ++plane) {
> > >>>>>> + length = (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR)
> > >>>>>> + ? b->m.planes[plane].length
> > >>>>>> + : vb->v4l2_planes[plane].length;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + if (b->m.planes[plane].bytesused > length)
> > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> > >>>>>> + if (b->m.planes[plane].data_offset >=
> > >>>>>> + b->m.planes[plane].bytesused)
> > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > This patch causes regressions. After kernel upgrade applications that
> > zero the planes array and don't set bytesused will stop working.
> > We could say that these are buggy applications, but if it has been
> > allowed for several kernel releases failing VIDIOC_QBUF on this check
> > now is plainly a regression IMO. I guess Linus wouldn't be happy about
> > a change like this.
> >
> > With this patch it is no longer possible to queue a buffer with bytesused
> > set to 0. I think it shouldn't be disallowed to queue a buffer with no
> > data to be used. So the check should likely be instead:
> >
> > if (b->m.planes[plane].bytesused > 0 &&
> > b->m.planes[plane].data_offset >=
> > b->m.planes[plane].bytesused)
> > return -EINVAL;
What about
if (b->m.planes[plane].data_offset > 0 &&
b->m.planes[plane].data_offset >=
b->m.planes[plane].bytesused)
return -EINVAL;
If data_offset is non-zero we don't want to accept a zero bytesused value.
We could also catch data_offset == 0 && bytesused == 0 with a WARN_ONCE to try
and get userspace applications fixed (this should definitely have been caught
from the very start).
> > Sorry for the late review of this.
>
> Makes sense. Could you please send such patch?
>
> > >>>>>> + }
> > >>>>>> + } else {
> > >>>>>> + length = (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR)
> > >>>>>> + ? b->length : vb->v4l2_planes[0].length;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + if (b->bytesused > length)
> > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> > >>>>>> + }
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + return 0;
> > >>>>>> +}
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +/**
> > >>>>>> * __buffer_in_use() - return true if the buffer is in use and
> > >>>>>> * the queue cannot be freed (by the means of REQBUFS(0)) call
> > >>>>>> */
> > >>>>>> @@ -975,6 +1010,10 @@ static int __buf_prepare(struct vb2_buffer
> > >>>>>> *vb,
> > >>>>>> const struct v4l2_buffer *b)>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> struct vb2_queue *q = vb->vb2_queue;
> > >>>>>> int ret;
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + ret = __verify_length(vb, b);
> > >>>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> > >>>>>> + return ret;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> switch (q->memory) {
> > >>>>>> case V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP:
> > >>>>>> ret = __qbuf_mmap(vb, b);
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
