Re: Dropping 'fringe' pixbuf loaders

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 01:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 18:38 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Cosimo Cecchi 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Owen Taylor 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Do we trust this code or not? If not, we should either a)
> > > > sandbox
> > > > it or b) delete it.
> > > > 
> > > > Moving less-trusted loaders into a separate repo is a blame-
> > > > the-
> > > > user or blame-the-os-vendor move, depending on who installs
> > > > them
> > > > onto the system.
> > > The only way to prevent the blame game you mention in a typical
> > > distribution where everything is installed through packages would
> > > be to stop supporting out of tree modules entirely, if I
> > > interpret
> > > your concern correctly.
> > > 
> > > My point is that as long as that's the case, at least maintaining
> > > them in a central location gives people an aggregation point for
> > > fixes.
> > > 
> > But they are not being maintained by anybody, and the fixes have
> > not
> > been aggregating... every few years some security researchers
> > decide
> > to have a look at image loaders, and then we get a bunch of
> > overflows
> > and corruptions reported, and either me of Benjamin grudgingly fix
> > them. And both of us are tired of doing that.
> 
> I would argue that at least I have taken care of some of that work at
> the end of 2014. I didn't get to see coverity scans or cppchecks, but
> this isn't the most complicated code to fix up and review.
> 
> If removing some of those loaders helps lighten the number of
> potential
> bugs, sure, go for it.
> 
> As for removing those loaders, I'd double-check whether GIMP has
> native
> support for those (not through a gdk-pixbuf loader), so that at least
> some modicum of support is left for those, making it less likely that
> we'll crash when somebody has a duff file in their file manager.

I tested all those formats, and I think we can remove the PCX and TGA
loaders, and leave those to be loaded by GIMP, in the very short term.

For QTIF, either support in GIMP or in GStreamer (it's usually only
used along with QuickTime) would be fine.

ANI files really need to be supported by GIMP before we remove the
support for it.

In short, remove all the mentioned modules, except ANI, and file bugs
against GIMP/GStreamer for the unsupported ones.

Cheers

Supported by GIMP:
PCX [2]
TGA [2]

Unsupported by GIMP:
ANI [1]
QTIF [3]
WBMP [4] (display broken in gdk-pixbuf)
RAS [5] (broken/unsupported in gdk-pixbuf)

[1]: Tests in shared-mime-info and gdk-pixbuf
[2]: Tests in shared-mime-info
[3]: 
https://github.com/daeken/QtChaos/blob/master/Harnesses/Quicktime/Sample.qtif?raw=true
[4]: http://www.thepcmanwebsite.com/wap_images.shtml
[5]: http://samples.libav.org/image-samples/sunrast/
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

Re: Dropping 'fringe' pixbuf loaders

[Matthias Clasen]

Thanks for the feedback.

So far, I've dropped wbmp, ras and pcx.

I've left tga because Benjamin has a branch with a rewritten loader
(hopefully more trustwrothy).
I've left qtif because I wasn't sure if this format is important on OS X..
I've left ani because it is an example of adding animation formats.

I'll look at following your recommendation for the others.
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

Re: Dropping 'fringe' pixbuf loaders

[Petr Tomasek]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:28:17AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> After several rounds of fixing overflow and allocation failure issues in
> various loaders this cycle, I'm reconsidering following the suggestion in
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=721372
> 
>   wbmp, tga, ras, qtif, pcx, ani... these are probably prime candidates for
> being removed.
> 
> Before doing so, I want to ask if anybody is willing to step up and
> maintain these loaders.  Note that even if we drop these from gdk-pixbuf
> itself, they can be maintained out-of-tree... one of the advantages of
> having loaders as modules.
> 
> Matthias
> 

Hello Matthias!

Is it possible to add such modules as "third-party" module?
If so wouldn't it just be possible to create a github repository a move
these modules there - so that users can decide if they take the risk or
not?

Thanks!

Petr

___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

Re: Dropping 'fringe' pixbuf loaders

[Michael Natterer]

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 01:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> As for removing those loaders, I'd double-check whether GIMP has 
> native
> support for those (not through a gdk-pixbuf loader), so that at least
> some modicum of support is left for those, making it less likely that
> we'll crash when somebody has a duff file in their file manager.

Turning a pixbuf loader into a GIMP file import plug-in is fairly 
trivial, perhaps even into a GEGL load operation. Can you come
to #gimp for discussing this? I don't currently have time for doing
this myself, but we will definitely help whoever is interested
hacking it up.

Regards,
Mitch


___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list