One way to reproduce this regression is:
```
#include "tiffio.h"
int main()
{
TIFF* tiff = TIFFOpen("gray.movie.u2.tif", "r");
TIFFSetDirectory(tiff, 65534);
TIFFSetDirectory(tiff, 0);
}
```
This passes for me on Windows with libtiff 4.4 and raises an error and
prints the warning with 4.5.
I'm OK if this is not considered a blocker and can just reduce the
maximum supported IFDs in the imagecodecs library by one.
Christoph
On 12/11/2022 1:04 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
I've just skimmed through Debian backported patches on top of 4.1.0
referenced at https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/libtiff-dev
(http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/t/tiff/tiff_4.1.0+git191117-2ubuntu0.20.04.7.debian.tar.xz) and none of them are IFD looping detection related.
Anyway, given the following test program
"""
int main()
{
TIFF* tiff =
TIFFOpen("/home/even/Téléchargements/gray.movie.u2.tif", "r");
int incr = 1;
while(TIFFReadDirectory(tiff))
{
incr ++;
}
printf("%d\n", incr);
}
""",
with 4.4.0 I get
TIFFCheckDirOffset: Cannot handle more than 65535 TIFF directories.
65535
and with master I get:
_TIFFCheckDirNumberAndOffset: Cannot handle more than 65535 TIFF
directories.
TIFFReadDirectory: Warning, Didn't read next directory due to IFD
looping at offset 0xa7ff1e (11009822) to offset 0xa7ffc4 (11009988).
65535
So except the extra error message that is a bit misleading, we didn't
really regress. I'd be tempted to release with the current state of master.
Le 11/12/2022 à 21:43, Bob Friesenhahn a écrit :
Before people get too excited about this issue, I should mention that
it appears that the libtiff provided with Ubuntu 20.04 already
produces the same error condition.
This means that either the issue was in libtiff before, or else Ubuntu
applied patches to introduce it.
Bob
On Sun, 11 Dec 2022, Sulau wrote:
Hi Christoph
Is the actual issue having more than 65534 IFDs in the file or just
the error message when changing from IFD number 65534 to IFD number
0? I understood that more than 65534 IFDs (even more than 65535) are
to be addressed.
Best regards
Su
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tiff [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Sulau
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2022 20:58
An: 'Even Rouault' <[email protected]>; 'Bob Friesenhahn'
<[email protected]>; 'Christoph Gohlke' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [Tiff] libtiff v4.5.0 release candidate available
Hi,
I had a quick look at it.
Within libitff, the number of directories / directory number is
stored in an uint16_t and the number 65535 was treated as a magic
number for a "non-existing directory"! Thus, libtiff can only handle
65534 directories.
However, many libtiff functions do not depend on the directory
number. Therefore, it is in principle possible to handle TIFF files
with more than 65535 IFDs if none of these functions that use the
directory number are used.
Like the test file gray.movie.u2.tif containing 65567 pages.
Before version 4.5.0, the existing IFD loop check was ineffective.
Therefore, no warnings occur for test files with more than 65534
directories.
Since the directory number is contained as a uint16_t in public
libtiff interfaces, I see no quick solution at the moment other than
to disable the IFD loop check again.
I will setup a gitlab issue.
Su
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tiff [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Even
Rouault
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2022 17:57
An: Bob Friesenhahn <[email protected]>; Christoph Gohlke
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [Tiff] libtiff v4.5.0 release candidate available
The unfortunate quadratic performance of IFD looping detection is not
something new. I can reproduce it with older libtiff too. We'd
probably need the equivalent of std::set<uint64_t> setOfIFDOffsets to
have good performance ...
But it is not time to fix that at release candidate stage. The
priority would be to avoid the regression of the error message when
reading the 65535th IFD. I've CC'ed Su Laus who did work in that area
during this dev cycle.
Even
Le 11/12/2022 à 17:37, Bob Friesenhahn a écrit :
"TIFFReadDirectory: Warning, Didn't read next directory due to IFD
looping at offset 0xa7ff1e (11009822) to offset 0x8 (8)."
Error: "Cannot handle more than 65535 TIFF directories"
The test file at
<https://github.com/cgohlke/imagecodecs/blob/master/tests/tiff/gray.m
ovie.u2.tif>
contains 65567 pages.
This test file reveals something else which is concerning. I ran a
profiler on GraphicsMagick while it was reading this file and I see
that 53% of the time is being spent in _TIFFCheckDirNumberAndOffset().
Most of the time is being spent in the code associated with "Check if
offset is already in the list".
I assumed that most of the time would be spent in GraphicsMagick code.
Bob
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
