linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Venus stateful Codec API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 14:34:31 +0900
From:   Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>
To:     Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vikash Garodia <vgarodia@...eaurora.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
        Malathi Gottam <mgottam@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Venus stateful Codec API

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:13 PM Stanimir Varbanov
<stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thank you for review and valuable comments!
>
> On 1/24/19 10:43 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > Hi Stanimir,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:20 AM Stanimir Varbanov
> > <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This aims to make Venus decoder compliant with stateful Codec API [1].
> >> The patches 1-9 are preparation for the cherry on the cake patch 10
> >> which implements the decoder state machine similar to the one in the
> >> stateful codec API documentation.
> >
> > Thanks *a lot* for this series! I am still stress-testing it against
> > the Chromium decoder tests, but so far it has been rock-solid. I have
> > a few inline comments on some patches ; I will also want to review the
> > state machine more thoroughly after refreshing my mind on Tomasz doc,
> > but this looks pretty promising already.
>
> I'm expecting problems with ResetAfterFirstConfigInfo. I don't know why
> but this test case is very dirty. I'd appreciate any help to decipher
> what is the sequence of v4l2 calls made by this unittest case.

I did not see any issue with ResetAfterFirstConfigInfo, however
ResourceExhaustion seems to hang once in a while. But I could already
see this behavior with the older patchset.

In any case I plan to thoroughly review the state machine. I agree it
is a bit complex to grasp.