The Gordian knot that 7fec5074f9 attempted
to unravel was caused by the fact that there are several
data-precision-dependent (JSAMPLE-dependent) fields and methods in the
exposed libjpeg API structures, and if you change the exposed libjpeg
API structures, then you have to change the whole API. If you change
the whole API, then you have to provide a whole new library to support
the new API, and that makes it difficult to support multiple data
precisions in the same application. (It is not impossible, as example.c
demonstrated, but using data-precision-dependent libjpeg API structures
would have made the cjpeg, djpeg, and jpegtran source code hard to read,
so it made more sense to build, install, and package 12-bit-specific
versions of those applications.)
Unfortunately, the result of that initial integration effort was an
unreadable and unmaintainable mess, which is a problem for a library
that is an ISO/ITU-T reference implementation. Also, as I dug into the
problem of lossless JPEG support, I realized that 16-bit lossless JPEG
images are a thing, and supporting yet another version of the libjpeg
API just for those images is untenable.
In fact, however, the touch points for JSAMPLE in the exposed libjpeg
API structures are minimal:
- The colormap and sample_range_limit fields in jpeg_decompress_struct
- The alloc_sarray() and access_virt_sarray() methods in
jpeg_memory_mgr
- jpeg_write_scanlines() and jpeg_write_raw_data()
- jpeg_read_scanlines() and jpeg_read_raw_data()
- jpeg_skip_scanlines() and jpeg_crop_scanline()
(This is subtle, but both of those functions use JSAMPLE-dependent
opaque structures behind the scenes.)
It is much more readable and maintainable to provide 12-bit-specific
versions of those six top-level API functions and to document that the
aforementioned methods and fields must be type-cast when using 12-bit
samples. Since that eliminates the need to provide a 12-bit-specific
version of the exposed libjpeg API structures, we can:
- Compile only the precision-dependent libjpeg modules (the
coefficient buffer controllers, the colorspace converters, the
DCT/IDCT managers, the main buffer controllers, the preprocessing
and postprocessing controller, the downsampler and upsamplers, the
quantizers, the integer DCT methods, and the IDCT methods) for
multiple data precisions.
- Introduce 12-bit-specific methods into the various internal
structures defined in jpegint.h.
- Create precision-independent data type, macro, method, field, and
function names that are prefixed by an underscore, and use an
internal header to convert those into precision-dependent data
type, macro, method, field, and function names, based on the value
of BITS_IN_JSAMPLE, when compiling the precision-dependent libjpeg
modules.
- Expose precision-dependent jinit*() functions for each of the
precision-dependent libjpeg modules.
- Abstract the precision-dependent libjpeg modules by calling the
appropriate precision-dependent jinit*() function, based on the
value of cinfo->data_precision, from top-level libjpeg API
functions.
Referring to https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/7575, if the
fuzzer suffix contains periods, it can cause ClusterFuzz to misinterpret
the file extension of the fuzzer executables and thus misidentify them.
Otherwise, the targets will require libstdc++, the i386 version of which
is not available in the OSS-Fuzz runtime environment. The OSS-Fuzz
build environment passes -stdlib:libc++ in the CXXFLAGS environment
variable in order to mitigate this issue, since the runtime environment
has the i386 version of libc++, but using that compiler flag requires
using the C++ compiler.
This commit integrates OSS-Fuzz targets directly into the libjpeg-turbo
source tree, thus obsoleting and improving code coverage relative to
Google's OSS-Fuzz target for libjpeg-turbo (previously available here:
https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz).
I hope to eventually create fuzz targets for the BMP, GIF, and PPM
readers as well, which would allow for fuzz-testing compression, but
since those readers all require an input file, it is unclear how to
build an efficient fuzzer around them. It doesn't make sense to
fuzz-test compression in isolation, because compression can't accept
arbitrary input data.
