Re: [PATCHv3 5/6] media: uvcvideo: add UVC 1.5 ROI control

[Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:31 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On (21/03/24 11:14), Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > +static int uvc_ioctl_s_roi(struct file *file, void *fh,
> > > > > +                          struct v4l2_selection *sel)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct uvc_fh *handle = fh;
> > > > > +       struct uvc_streaming *stream = handle->stream;
> > > > > +       struct uvc_roi_rect *roi;
> > > > > +       int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (!validate_roi_bounds(stream, sel))
> > > > > +               return -E2BIG;
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this is the correct approach or if we should convert the
> > > > value to the closest valid...
> > >
> > > Well, at this point we know that ROI rectangle dimensions are out of
> > > sane value range. I'd rather tell user-space about integer overflow.
> >
> > Adjusting the rectangle to something supported by the hardware is
> > mentioned explicitly in the V4L2 API documentation and is what drivers
> > have to implement. Returning an error on invalid value is not a
> > correct behavior here (and similarly for many other operations, e.g.
> > S_FMT).
>
> Well, in this particular case we are talking about user-space that wants
> to set ROI rectangle that is knowingly violates device's GET_MAX and
> overflows UVC ROI rectangle u16 value range. That's a clear bug in user-space.
> Do we want to pretend that user-space does the correct thing and fixup
> stuff behind the scenes?
>

That's how the API is defined. There is a valid use case for this -
you don't need to run QUERY_CTRL if all you need is setting the
biggest possible rectangle, just set it to (0, 0), (INT_MAX, INT_MAX).

> > > Looking for the closest ROI rectangle that suffice can be rather
> > > tricky. It may sounds like we can just use BOUNDARIES_MAX, but this
> > > is what Firmware D returns for GET_MAX
> > >
> > > ioctl(V4L2_SEL_TGT_ROI_BOUNDS_MAX)
> > >
> > >         0, 0, 65535, 65535
> >
> > Perhaps the frame size would be the correct bounds?
>
> I can check that.