Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (7575)

• Simply beyond ridiculous

  7 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.265, speed

  For the past few years, various improvements on H.264 have been periodically proposed, ranging from larger transforms to better intra prediction. These finally came together in the JCT-VC meeting this past April, where over two dozen proposals were made for a next-generation video coding standard. Of course, all of these were in very rough-draft form ; it will likely take years to filter it down into a usable standard. In the process, they’ll pick the most useful features (hopefully) from each proposal and combine them into something a bit more sane. But, of course, it all has to start somewhere.

  A number of features were common : larger block sizes, larger transform sizes, fancier interpolation filters, improved intra prediction schemes, improved motion vector prediction, increased internal bit depth, new entropy coding schemes, and so forth. A lot of these are potentially quite promising and resolve a lot of complaints I’ve had about H.264, so I decided to try out the proposal that appeared the most interesting : the Samsung+BBC proposal (A124), which claims compression improvements of around 40%.

  The proposal combines a bouillabaisse of new features, ranging from a 12-tap interpolation filter to 12thpel motion compensation and transforms as large as 64×64. Overall, I would say it’s a good proposal and I don’t doubt their results given the sheer volume of useful features they’ve dumped into it. I was a bit worried about complexity, however, as 12-tap interpolation filters don’t exactly scream “fast”.

  I prepared myself for the slowness of an unoptimized encoder implementation, compiled their tool, and started a test encode with their recommended settings.

  I waited. The first frame, an I-frame, completed.

  I took a nap.

  I waited. The second frame, a P-frame, was done.

  I played a game of Settlers.

  I waited. The third frame, a B-frame, was done.

  I worked on a term paper.

  I waited. The fourth frame, a B-frame, was done.

  After a full 6 hours, 8 frames had encoded. Yes, at this rate, it would take a full two weeks to encode 10 seconds of HD video. On a Core i7. This is not merely slow ; this is over 1000 times slower than x264 on “placebo” mode. This is so slow that it is not merely impractical ; it is impossible to even test. This encoder is apparently designed for some sort of hypothetical future computer from space. And word from other developers is that the Intel proposal is even slower.

  This has led me to suspect that there is a great deal of cheating going on in the H.265 proposals. The goal of the proposals, of course, is to pick the best feature set for the next generation video compression standard. But there is an extra motivation : organizations whose features get accepted get patents on the resulting standard, and thus income. With such large sums of money in the picture, dishonesty becomes all the more profitable.

  There is a set of rules, of course, to limit how the proposals can optimize their encoders. If different encoders use different optimization techniques, the results will no longer be comparable — remember, they are trying to compare compression features, not methods of optimizing encoder-side decisions. Thus all encoders are required to use a constant quantizer, specified frame types, and so forth. But there are no limits on how slow an encoder can be or what algorithms it can use.

  It would be one thing if the proposed encoder was a mere 10 times slower than the current reference ; that would be reasonable, given the low level of optimization and higher complexity of the new standard. But this is beyond ridiculous. With the prize given to whoever can eke out the most PSNR at a given quantizer at the lowest bitrate (with no limits on speed), we’re just going to get an arms race of slow encoders, with every company trying to use the most ridiculous optimizations possible, even if they involve encoding the frame 100,000 times over to choose the optimal parameters. And the end result will be as I encountered here : encoders so slow that they are simply impossible to even test.

  Such an arms race certainly does little good in optimizing for reality where we don’t have 30 years to encode an HD movie : a feature that gives great compression improvements is useless if it’s impossible to optimize for in a reasonable amount of time. Certainly once the standard is finalized practical encoders will be written — but it makes no sense to optimize the standard for a use-case that doesn’t exist. And even attempting to “optimize” anything is difficult when encoding a few seconds of video takes weeks.

  Update : The people involved have contacted me and insist that there was in fact no cheating going on. This is probably correct ; the problem appears to be that the rules that were set out were simply not strict enough, making many changes that I would intuitively consider “cheating” to be perfectly allowed, and thus everyone can do it.

  I would like to apologize if I implied that the results weren’t valid ; they are — the Samsung-BBC proposal is definitely one of the best, which is why I picked it to test with. It’s just that I think any situation in which it’s impossible to test your own software is unreasonable, and thus the entire situation is an inherently broken one, given the lax rules, slow baseline encoder, and no restrictions on compute time.

• Heroic Defender of the Stack

  27 janvier 2011, par Multimedia Mike — Programming

  Problem Statement

  I have been investigating stack smashing and countermeasures (stack smashing prevention, or SSP). Briefly, stack smashing occurs when a function allocates a static array on the stack and writes past the end of it, onto other local variables and eventually onto other function stack frames. When it comes time to return from the function, the return address has been corrupted and the program ends up some place it really shouldn’t. In the best case, the program just crashes ; in the worst case, a malicious party crafts code to exploit this malfunction.

  Further, debugging such a problem is especially obnoxious because by the time the program has crashed, it has already trashed any record (on the stack) of how it got into the errant state.

  Preventative Countermeasure

  GCC has had SSP since version 4.1. The computer inserts SSP as additional code when the -fstack-protector command line switch is specified. Implementation-wise, SSP basically inserts a special value (the literature refers to this as the ’canary’ as in "canary in the coalmine") at the top of the stack frame when entering the function, and code before leaving the function to make sure the canary didn’t get stepped on. If something happens to the canary, the program is immediately aborted with a message to stderr about what happened. Further, gcc’s man page on my Ubuntu machine proudly trumpets that this functionality is enabled per default ever since Ubuntu 6.10.

  And that’s really all there is to it. Your code is safe from stack smashing by default. Or so the hand-wavy documentation would have you believe.

  Not exactly

  Exercising the SSP

  I wanted to see the SSP in action to make sure it was a real thing. So I wrote some code that smashes the stack in pretty brazen ways so that I could reasonably expect to trigger the SSP (see later in this post for the code). Here’s what I learned that wasn’t in any documentation :

  SSP is only emitted for functions that have static arrays of 8-bit data (i.e., [unsigned] chars). If you have static arrays of other data types (like, say, 32-bit ints), those are still fair game for stack smashing.

  Evaluating the security vs. speed/code size trade-offs, it makes sense that the compiler wouldn’t apply this protection everywhere (I can only muse about how my optimization-obsessive multimedia hacking colleagues would absolute freak out if this code were unilaterally added to all functions). So why are only static char arrays deemed to be "vulnerable objects" (the wording that the gcc man page uses) ? A security hacking colleague suggested that this is probably due to the fact that the kind of data which poses the highest risk is arrays of 8-bit input data from, e.g., network sources.

  The gcc man page also lists an option -fstack-protector-all that is supposed to protect all functions. The man page’s definition of "all functions" perhaps differs from my own since invoking the option does not have differ in result from plain, vanilla -fstack-protector.

  The Valgrind Connection

  "Memory trouble ? Run Valgrind !" That may as well be Valgrind’s marketing slogan. Indeed, it’s the go-to utility for finding troublesome memory-related problems and has saved me on a number of occasions. However, it must be noted that it is useless for debugging this type of problem. If you understand how Valgrind works, this makes perfect sense. Valgrind operates by watching all memory accesses and ensuring that the program is only accessing memory to which it has privileges. In the stack smashing scenario, the program is fully allowed to write to that stack space ; after all, the program recently, legitimately pushed that return value onto the stack when calling the errant, stack smashing function.

  Valgrind embodies a suite of tools. My idea for an addition to this suite would be a mechanism which tracks return values every time a call instruction is encountered. The tool could track the return values in a separate stack data structure, though this might have some thorny consequences for some more unusual program flows. Instead, it might track them in some kind of hash/dictionary data structure and warn the programmer whenever a ’ret’ instruction is returning to an address that isn’t in the dictionary.

  Simple Stack Smashing Code

  Here’s the code I wrote to test exactly how SSP gets invoked in gcc. Compile with ’gcc -g -O0 -Wall -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector stack-fun.c -o stack-fun’.

  stack-fun.c :

  PLAIN TEXT

  C :

  1. /* keep outside of the stack frame */
  2. static int i ;
  3.  
  4. void stack_smasher32(void)
  5. {
  6.  int buffer32[8] ;
  7.  // uncomment this array and compile without optimizations
  8.  // in order to force this function to compile with SSP
  9. // char buffer_to_trigger_ssp[8] ;
  10.  
  11.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  12.   buffer32[i] = 0xA5 ;
  13. }
  14.  
  15. void stack_smasher8(void)
  16. {
  17.  char buffer8[8] ;
  18.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  19.   buffer8[i] = 0xA5 ;
  20. }
  21.  
  22. int main()
  23. {
  24. // stack_smasher8() ;
  25.  stack_smasher32() ;
  26.  return 0 ;
  27. }

  The above incarnation should just produce the traditional "Segmentation fault". However, uncommenting and executing stack_smasher8() in favor of stack_smasher32() should result in "*** stack smashing detected *** : ./stack-fun terminated", followed by the venerable "Segmentation fault".

  As indicated in the comments for stack_smasher32(), it’s possible to trick the compiler into emitting SSP for a function by inserting an array of at least 8 bytes (any less and SSP won’t emit, as documented, unless gcc’s ssp-buffer-size parameter is tweaked). This has to be compiled with no optimization at all (-O0) or else the compiler will (quite justifiably) optimize away the unused buffer and omit SSP.

  For reference, I ran my tests on Ubuntu 10.04.1 with gcc 4.4.3 compiling the code for both x86_32 and x86_64.

• Playing Video on a Sega Dreamcast

  9 mars 2011, par Multimedia Mike — Sega Dreamcast

  Here’s an honest engineering question : If you were tasked to make compressed video play back on a Sega Dreamcast video game console, what video format would you choose ? Personally, I would choose RoQ, the format invented for The 11th Hour computer game and later used in Quake III and other games derived from the same engine. This post explains my reasoning.

  Video Background
  One of the things I wanted to do when I procured a used Sega Dreamcast back in 2001 was turn it into a set-top video playback unit. This is something that a lot of people tried to do, apparently, to varying degrees of success. Interest would wane in a few years as it became easier and easier to crack an Xbox and install XBMC. The Xbox was much better suited to playing codecs that were getting big at the time, most notably MPEG-4 part 2 video (DivX/XviD).

  The Dreamcast, while quite capable when it was released in 1999, was not very well-equipped to deal with an MPEG-type codec. I have recently learned that there are other hackers out there on the internet who are still trying to get the most out of this system. I was contacted for advice about how to make Theora perform better on the Dreamcast.
  
  Interesting thing about consoles and codecs : Since you are necessarily distributing code along with your data, you have far more freedom to use whatever codecs you want for your audio and video data. This is why Vorbis and even Theora have seen quite a bit of use in video games, "internet standards" be darned. Thus, when I realized this application had no hard and fast requirement to use Theora, and that it could use any codec that fit the platform, my mind started churning. When I was programming the DC 10 years ago, I didn’t have access to the same wealth of multimedia knowledge that is currently available.

  Requirements Gathering
  What do we need here ?

  • Codec needs to run on the Sega Dreamcast ; this eliminates codecs for which only binary decoder implementations are available
  • Must decode 320x240 video at 30 fps ; higher resolutions up to 640x480 would be desirable
  • Must deliver decent quality at 12X optical read speeds (DC drive speed)
  • There must be some decent, preferably free, encoder readily available ; speed of encoding, however, is not important ; i.e., "take as long as you need, encoder"

  Theora was the go-to codec because it’s just commonly known as "the free, open source video codec". But clearly it’s not suitable for, well... any purpose, really (sorry, easy target ; OW ! stop throwing things !). VP8/WebM — Theora’s heir apparent — would not qualify either, as my prior experiments have already demonstrated.

  Candidates
  What did the big boys use for video on the Dreamcast ? A lot of games relied on CRI’s Sofdec middleware which was MPEG-1 video and a custom ADPCM format. I don’t know if I have ever seen DC games that used MPEG-1 video at a higher resolution than 320x240 (though I have not searched exhaustively). The fact that CRI used a custom ADPCM format for this application may indicate that there wasn’t enough CPU power left over to decode a perceptual, transform-based audio codec alongside the 320x240 video.

  A few other DC games used 4X Technologies’ 4XM format. The most notable licensee was Alone in the Dark : The New Nightmare (DC version only ; PC version used Bink). This codec was DCT-based but incorporated 16-bit RGB colorspace into its design, presumably to optimize for applications like game consoles that couldn’t directly handle planar YUV. AITD:TNN’s videos were 640x360, a marked improvement over the typical Sofdec fare. I was about to write off 4XM as a contender due to lack of encoder, but the encoding tools are preserved on our samples site. A few other issues, though : The FFmpeg decoder doesn’t seem to work correctly as of this writing (and nobody has noticed yet, even though it’s tested via FATE).

  What ideas do I have ? Right off the bat, I’m thinking vector quantizer (VQ). Vector quantizers are notoriously slow to compress but are blazingly fast to decompress which is why they were popular in the early days of video compression. First, there’s Cinepak. I fear that might be too simple for this application. Plus, I don’t know if existing (binary-only) compressors are very decent. It seems that they only ever had to handle small videos and I’ve heard that they can really fall over if anything more is demanded of them.

  Sorenson Video 1 is another contender. FFmpeg has an encoder (which some allege is better than Sorenson’s original compressor). However, I fear that the wonky algorithm and colorspace might not mesh well with the Dreamcast.

  My thinking quickly converged on RoQ. This was designed to run fullscreen (640x480) video on i486-class hardware. While RoQ fundamentally operates in a YUV colorspace, it’s trivial to convert it to any other colorspace during decoding and the image will be rendered in that colorspace. Plus, there are open source encoders available for the format (namely, several versions of Eric Lasota’s Switchblade encoder, one of which lives natively in FFmpeg), as well as the original proprietary encoder.

  Which Library ?
  There are several code choices here : FFmpeg (LGPL), Switchblade (GPL), and the original Quake 3 source code (GPL). There is one more option that I think might be easiest, which is the decoder Dr. Tim created when he reverse engineered the format in the first place. That has a very liberal "do whatever you like, but be nice and give me credit" license (probably qualifies as BSD).

  This code is no longer at its original home but the Wayback Machine still had a copy, which I have now mirrored (idroq.tar.gz).

  Adaptation
  Dr. Tim’s code still compiles and runs great on Linux (64-bit !) with SDL output. I would like to get it ported to the Dreamcast using the same SDL output, which KallistiOS supports. Then, there is the matter of fixing the longstanding chroma bug in the original sample decoder (described here). The decoder also needs to be modified to natively render RGB565 data, as that will work best with the DC’s graphics hardware.

  After making the code work, I want to profile it and test whether it can handle full-frame 640x480 playback at 30 frames/second. I will need to contrive a sample to achieve this.

  Unfortunately, things went off the rails pretty quickly when I tried to get the RoQ decoder ported to DC/KOS. It looks like there’s a bug in KallistiOS’s minimalistic standard C library, or at least a discrepancy with my desktop Linux system. When you read to the end of a file and then seek backwards to someplace that isn’t the end, is the file still in EOF state ?

  According to my Linux desktop :

  open file ;          feof() = 0
  seek to end ;        feof() = 0
  read one more byte ; feof() = 1
  seek back to start ; feof() = 0
  

  According to KallistiOS :

  open file ;          feof() = 0
  seek to end ;        feof() = 0
  read one more byte ; feof() = 1
  seek back to start ; feof() = 1
  

  Here’s the seek-test.c program I used to test this issue :

  PLAIN TEXT

  C :

  1. #include <stdio .h>
  2.  
  3. int main()
  4. {
  5.   FILE *f ;
  6.   unsigned char byte ;
  7.  
  8.   f = fopen("seek_test.c", "r") ;
  9.   printf("open file ;     feof() = %d\n", feof(f)) ;
  10.   fseek(f, 0, SEEK_END) ;
  11.   printf("seek to end ;    feof() = %d\n", feof(f)) ;
  12.   fread(&byte, 1, 1, f) ;
  13.   printf("read one more byte ; feof() = %d\n", feof(f)) ;
  14.   fseek(f, 0, SEEK_SET) ;
  15.   printf("seek back to start ; feof() = %d\n", feof(f)) ;
  16.   fclose(f) ;
  17.  
  18.   return 0 ;
  19. }

  EOF
  Speaking of EOF, I’m about done for this evening.

  What codec would you select for this task, given the requirements involved ?