From: James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat/framecrcenc: compute the checksum for side data Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 16:33:21 -0300 Message-ID: <d427fda1-7ffe-40fd-a314-bd9346e4ecc2@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20240527193155.GP2821752@pb2> On 5/27/2024 4:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:20:55PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:17:15PM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:15:43AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: >>>>> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-04-27 02:36:23) >>>>>> This allows detecting issues in side data related code, same as what >>>>>> framecrc does for before already for packet data itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> I am against this patch. Checksumming side data is a fundamentally wrong >>>>> thing to do. >>>> >>>> It, or something equivalent is neccessary for regression testing. >>>> (and it was you who asked also for the tests i run to be part of >>>> fate. But here you object to it) >>>> >>>> You know, not checking side data is not checking it so differences would then not be >>>> detected allowing for unintended changes to be introduced (aka bugs) >>> >>> You have seen how much code is needed to get hashing to work for all targets >>> with some types, >> >> framecrcenc.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> 70 more lines of code, in my patch >> >> If we need another 70 to handle some corner cases, no idea if we do, thats >> still negligible >> >> >>> so it does feel like it's not the right thing to do. >> >> I dont think i can follow that logic >> >> >>> ffprobe (and f_sidedata) are what should be used for actual integrity >>> checks. >> >> ffprobe cannot test ffmpeg, ffmpeg is a seperate excutable >> >> If you suggest that side data should not be tested in FFmpeg while packet.data >> should be tested. That position seems inconsistant to me >> >> If you suggest that neither side data nor packet.data should be tested in FFmpeg >> iam confident that there would be a majority disagreeing. >> >> f_sidedata is not at the output of ffmpeg so even if it could test it, it >> does not test the ffmpeg output. >> We also dont replace running md5sum and framecrc on ffmpeg output by a bitstream >> filter. >> >> Again, there is need to test what comes out of FFmpeg, thats at the muxer level >> thats what framecrcenc does. > > There is also an additional aspect > and that is efficiency or "time taken by all fate tests" > framecrcenc already has all the side data, it costs basically 0 time to print that > > any ffprobe based check needs to run everything a 2nd time, so it will be slower > > also ffprobe is only good for side data from the demuxer. > my patch tests all cases including side data from the encoder or any other > source that gets forwarded to the muxer in each testcase. We could extend showinfo_bsf to print side data information. > > thx > > [...] > > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-27 19:33 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2024-04-27 0:36 Michael Niedermayer 2024-04-27 10:44 ` Andreas Rheinhardt 2024-04-27 12:07 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-04-28 3:43 ` James Almer 2024-04-30 23:25 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-04-30 23:29 ` James Almer 2024-05-01 0:40 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-01 0:45 ` James Almer 2024-05-27 8:15 ` Anton Khirnov 2024-05-27 14:11 ` James Almer 2024-05-31 7:39 ` Anton Khirnov 2024-05-27 18:11 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-27 18:17 ` James Almer 2024-05-27 19:20 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-27 19:31 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-27 19:33 ` James Almer [this message] 2024-05-27 19:50 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-27 19:52 ` James Almer 2024-05-30 19:33 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-27 19:32 ` James Almer 2024-05-27 19:43 ` Michael Niedermayer 2024-05-31 7:32 ` Anton Khirnov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=d427fda1-7ffe-40fd-a314-bd9346e4ecc2@gmail.com \ --to=jamrial@gmail.com \ --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \ ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com public-inbox-index ffmpegdev Example config snippet for mirrors. AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git