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