On 2/19/2018 11:16 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:57:35PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 05:58:16PM +0000, Josh de Kock wrote:
>>>> This should be the last of the major API changes. I'm not entirely
>>>> sure if I missed anything.
>>> Moving from a register based system where a user app can register
>>> any subset to a system which registers all via an array will
>>> increase the size of statically linked binaries for users only
>>> using a subset.
>> User apps did not have the ability to register a subset. How would
>> they do that? They can't access the internals (ie. the ff_ references
>> to those components)
> I think you are mistaken here.
> What you are thinking of here, i think is, that ff_* symbols are not
> accessable to user apps. This is true with shared libs but the issue
> above is primarely an issue with static linking. There the ff_* symbols
> are available.
> But much more important, we are designing a new API here, it doesnt matter
> all that much what was possible, what matters is that it IS possible
> and its IMHO not a obscure use case to want to only "register" parts that are
> actually needed. Every security concious application that deals with
> some standarized input from the net, like a browser, would IMHO want to
> limit the parts that are enabled by as many and as hard ways as possible.
>> That was only something some internal tools used, and you can probably
>> find different options for dealing with those.
> I can imagine some ways to hack around it, for the fuzzer yes, but a
> clean way though proper public API (no ff_*, no #ifdefs around the array)
> would seem better
> So, yeah, i would prefer if a new API would allow registering subsets.
> Without this and if the fuzzer runs out of diskspace someone will probably
> need to hack around the new API so the arrays with all the pointers to
> every part arent linked in. I may be missing some solution but this
> sounds like a bunch of ugly code ...

Afaik, the objective of this new API was to make the modules const and
not mutable during init/registration by the requirement of setting the
*next pointer.
Admittedly, by keeping the init_static feature that can also set fields
like pix_fmt or change reported capabilities, the benefits from this new
API are more or less nullified.

So i agree with you that, seeing the drawbacks this new API introduced
without having actually achieved its objective, a different, better one
that allows "registration", the modules to be const while setting at
least some subset of capabilities based on the runtime environment
(things like enabled pix_fmts, codec capabilities and such) should be
written instead.

Whatever is done, in any case, should be decided fast. The current new
API is in the tree and should be removed without delay if we decide to
not use it in the end, even if a proper replacement is not written in
the short term.
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to