On 04/10/2014 02:46 AM, Pawel Osciak wrote:
> Looks good to me, just a small nit below.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The videobuf2-core did not zero the 'planes' array in __qbuf_userptr()
>> and __qbuf_dmabuf(). That's now memset to 0. Without this the reserved
>> array in struct v4l2_plane would be non-zero, causing v4l2-compliance
>> errors.
>>
>> More serious is the fact that data_offset was not handled correctly:
>>
>> - for capture devices it was never zeroed, which meant that it was
>> uninitialized. Unless the driver sets it it was a completely random
>> number. With the memset above this is now fixed.
>>
>> - __qbuf_dmabuf had a completely incorrect length check that included
>> data_offset.
>>
>> - in __fill_vb2_buffer in the DMABUF case the data_offset field was
>> unconditionally copied from v4l2_buffer to v4l2_plane when this
>> should only happen in the output case.
>>
>> - in the single-planar case data_offset was never correctly set to 0.
>> The single-planar API doesn't support data_offset, so setting it
>> to 0 is the right thing to do. This too is now solved by the memset.
>>
>> All these issues were found with v4l2-compliance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Pawel Osciak <pawel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 13 ++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> index f9059bb..596998e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> @@ -1169,8 +1169,6 @@ static void __fill_vb2_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b
>> b->m.planes[plane].m.fd;
>> v4l2_planes[plane].length =
>> b->m.planes[plane].length;
>> - v4l2_planes[plane].data_offset =
>> - b->m.planes[plane].data_offset;
>> }
>> }
>> } else {
>> @@ -1180,10 +1178,8 @@ static void __fill_vb2_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b
>> * In videobuf we use our internal V4l2_planes struct for
>> * single-planar buffers as well, for simplicity.
>> */
>> - if (V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(b->type)) {
>> + if (V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(b->type))
>> v4l2_planes[0].bytesused = b->bytesused;
>> - v4l2_planes[0].data_offset = 0;
>> - }
>>
>> if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR) {
>> v4l2_planes[0].m.userptr = b->m.userptr;
>> @@ -1193,9 +1189,7 @@ static void __fill_vb2_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b
>> if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF) {
>> v4l2_planes[0].m.fd = b->m.fd;
>> v4l2_planes[0].length = b->length;
>> - v4l2_planes[0].data_offset = 0;
>> }
>> -
>> }
>>
>> /* Zero flags that the vb2 core handles */
>> @@ -1238,6 +1232,7 @@ static int __qbuf_userptr(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b)
>> int write = !V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(q->type);
>> bool reacquired = vb->planes[0].mem_priv == NULL;
>>
>> + memset(planes, 0, sizeof(planes[0]) * vb->num_planes);
>
> memset(planes, 0, sizeof(planes));
Should we really do this? This array is for 8 planes, whereas today we do not
have more than 2 planes worst case. So zeroing all planes for every qbuf seems
excessive to me.
I fact, looking at the code only the actual planes are copied back anyway:
/*
* Now that everything is in order, copy relevant information
* provided by userspace.
*/
for (plane = 0; plane < vb->num_planes; ++plane)
vb->v4l2_planes[plane] = planes[plane];
so memsetting more than the actual number of planes is pointless.
Unless I am missing something?
Regards,
Hans
>
>> /* Copy relevant information provided by the userspace */
>> __fill_vb2_buffer(vb, b, planes);
>>
>> @@ -1357,6 +1352,7 @@ static int __qbuf_dmabuf(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b)
>> int write = !V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(q->type);
>> bool reacquired = vb->planes[0].mem_priv == NULL;
>>
>> + memset(planes, 0, sizeof(planes[0]) * vb->num_planes);
>
> memset(planes, 0, sizeof(planes));
>
>> /* Copy relevant information provided by the userspace */
>> __fill_vb2_buffer(vb, b, planes);
>>
>> @@ -1374,8 +1370,7 @@ static int __qbuf_dmabuf(struct vb2_buffer *vb, const struct v4l2_buffer *b)
>> if (planes[plane].length == 0)
>> planes[plane].length = dbuf->size;
>>
>> - if (planes[plane].length < planes[plane].data_offset +
>> - q->plane_sizes[plane]) {
>> + if (planes[plane].length < q->plane_sizes[plane]) {
>> dprintk(1, "qbuf: invalid dmabuf length for plane %d\n",
>> plane);
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
