[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/fft_template: Fix multiple runtime error: signed integer overflow: -1943918714 - 1935113003 cannot be represented in type 'int'

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 03:21:38PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 6/11/17, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:07:39PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:35:07PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> > <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Signed value in
> >> > > > Unsigned
> >> > > > INTeger type
> >> > >
> >> > > [..]
> >> > > > Both SUINT and unsigned should produce identical binaries
> >> > >
> >> > > This seems to go against the rule that code should be as simple as
> >> > possible.
> >> > >
> >> > > Unsigned is simpler than SUINT if the outcome is the same.
> >> >
> >> > You can simply add the part of my mail here as awnser that you snipped
> >> > away:
> >> >
> >> > "But it makes the code hard to understand and maintain because these
> >> >  values are not positive integers but signed integers. Which for
> >> >  C standard compliance need to be stored in a unsigned type."
> >> >
> >> > A type that avoids the undefinedness of signed but is semantically
> >> > signed is correct, unsigned is not.
> >> >
> >> > If understandable code and maintainable code has no value to you,
> >> > you would favour using single letter variables exclusivly and would
> >> > never use typedef.
> >> > But you do not do that.
> >> >
> >> > I fail to understand why you insist on using unsigned in place of a
> >> > more specific type, it is not the correct nor clean thing to do.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not just me, it appears to be most of us. Can't you just step back
> >> at
> >> some point and be like "ok, I'll let the majority have their way"?
> >

> > I do not know what the majority prefers. What i see is that the
> > people objecting are always the same 3-4 people. And very often
> > they have no authorship or past activity in the code a patch is about.
> > At least none i could find quickly.
> 
> How dare you speak like that about me?

About you ?
It was not intended to be about you nor was it intended to insult
anyone. Iam not sure why one would think otherwise.

if i search now for onemda and mails matching SUINT there are only 5
matches, 2 or 3 of these have SUINT just in context IIUC.
none is a reply to a patch from me in which you object due to SUINT.

I did realize you arent in favor of the type but i didnt precive you
as objecting to patches because of it.
and I definitly tried to use unsigned instead of SUINT in the first
place for code you wrote or maintain, if i made a mistake somewhere
tell me and ill fix it.

Also not complaining about it but people called the type a rootkit
or part of a rootkit (thus kind of implying that i would add an exploit
or rootkit), said i would ignore the majority and recommanded
me to step back. (It wasnt you and it totally doesnt matter who did)
but thats not exactly nice ...
i should feel offended instead of you, no ?


> 
> Do you think about yourself like holy cow in any aspect of FFmpeg,
> security or not.

no, certainly not.


[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the
dead. -- Aristotle 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20170612/cdf4f002/attachment.sig>