WIP: Fix #93103: modifier iterations can be set to a negative value #110916

Draft

Philipp Oeser wants to merge 1 commits from lichtwerk/blender:93103 into main

When changing the target branch, be careful to rebase the branch in your fork to match. See documentation.

Philipp Oeser commented

2023-08-08 10:35:54 +02:00

Member

Sanitize "iterations" in a couple of modifiers (namely Smooth, Corrective
Smooth, Laplacian Smooth & Laplacian Deform) to always
have a hard limit of 0.

Putting in negative values does not make sense (and could have caused an
infinite loop since the negative value is cast to unsigned internally in
the case of the 'Corrective Smooth' modifier).

Sanitize "iterations" in a couple of modifiers (namely Smooth, Corrective Smooth, Laplacian Smooth & Laplacian Deform) to always have a hard limit of 0. Putting in negative values does not make sense (and could have caused an infinite loop since the negative value is cast to unsigned internally in the case of the 'Corrective Smooth' modifier).

Philipp Oeser added 1 commit 2023-08-08 10:36:02 +02:00

1ec80a176e Fix #93103 : modifier iterations can be set to a negative value

Sanitize "iterations" in a couple of modifiers (namely Smooth, Corrective
Smooth, Laplacian Smooth & Laplacian Deform) to always
have a hard limit of 0.

Putting in negative values does not make sense (and could have caused an
infinite loop since the negative value is cast to unsigned internally in
the case of the 'Corrective Smooth' modifier).

Philipp Oeser added the

labels 2023-08-08 10:36:27 +02:00

Philipp Oeser requested review from Bastien Montagne 2023-08-08 10:36:55 +02:00

Philipp Oeser requested review from Hans Goudey 2023-08-08 10:37:09 +02:00

Philipp Oeser commented

2023-08-08 10:37:56 +02:00

Author

Member

This came up again in chat (was already on phabricator, see https://archive.blender.org/developer/D13240)

This came up again in chat (was already on phabricator, see https://archive.blender.org/developer/D13240)

Bastien Montagne requested changes 2023-08-08 10:43:11 +02:00

Bastien Montagne left a comment

Owner

LGTM, but think there should also be hard-coded clamping in the modifiers code itself? Especially given the fact that DNA values are short, not unsigned short... And even SHRT_MAX is likely waaaaayyyy to high as absolute max value, think hard-coded clamping in the [0, 1000] range would be a reasonable value?

LGTM, but think there should also be hard-coded clamping in the modifiers code itself? Especially given the fact that DNA values are `short`, not `unsigned short`... And even `SHRT_MAX` is likely waaaaayyyy to high as absolute max value, think hard-coded clamping in the `[0, 1000]` range would be a reasonable value?

Philipp Oeser commented

2023-08-08 11:44:45 +02:00

Author

Member

LGTM, but think there should also be hard-coded clamping in the modifiers code itself? Especially given the fact that DNA values are short, not unsigned short... And even SHRT_MAX is likely waaaaayyyy to high as absolute max value, think hard-coded clamping in the [0, 1000] range would be a reasonable value?

Dont think we are going the extra route of clamping theoretical DNA values in the modifiers code elsewhere (if we already "clamp" in RNA)? We dont do this in SubD for example. Not saying this would be bad to do, but then we should also do everywhere else?

No strong opinion about the range, in the worst case, this is just wasting compute time, dont think this will actually cause issues running out of memory etc? And I do recall cases were we lifted "arbitrary" range limits again (for folks who were actually in need to have higher limits) -- but like I said, no strong opinion about changing that to [0, 1000] ...

> LGTM, but think there should also be hard-coded clamping in the modifiers code itself? Especially given the fact that DNA values are `short`, not `unsigned short`... And even `SHRT_MAX` is likely waaaaayyyy to high as absolute max value, think hard-coded clamping in the `[0, 1000]` range would be a reasonable value? Dont think we are going the extra route of clamping theoretical DNA values in the modifiers code elsewhere (if we already "clamp" in RNA)? We dont do this in SubD for example. Not saying this would be bad to do, but then we should also do everywhere else? No strong opinion about the range, in the worst case, this is just wasting compute time, dont think this will actually cause issues running out of memory etc? And I do recall cases were we lifted "arbitrary" range limits again (for folks who were actually in need to have higher limits) -- but like I said, no strong opinion about changing that to `[0, 1000]` ...

Bastien Montagne commented

2023-08-08 12:07:02 +02:00

Owner

Most of these modifiers applied to production data with too many iterations will lead to Blender freezing for minutes, if not hours.

Also since so far there was no limit, if you do not want to do a hard clamping in modifiers code itself, then you need at least to do a do-version, otherwise older files can still have negative (or insanely high positive) values...

IMHO it's way simpler and safer here to have same hard-clamping applied in modifiers code, as the one defined in RNA (can even use defines from DNA file actually, to be sure they always remain in sync).

And indeed could see other similar cases needing similar handling, yes.

Most of these modifiers applied to production data with too many iterations will lead to Blender freezing for minutes, if not hours. Also since so far there was no limit, if you do not want to do a hard clamping in modifiers code itself, then you need at least to do a do-version, otherwise older files can still have negative (or insanely high positive) values... IMHO it's way simpler and safer here to have same hard-clamping applied in modifiers code, as the one defined in RNA (can even use defines from DNA file actually, to be sure they always remain in sync). And indeed could see other similar cases needing similar handling, yes.

Philipp Oeser changed title from ~~Fix #93103: modifier iterations can be set to a negative value~~ to WIP: Fix #93103: modifier iterations can be set to a negative value

2023-08-08 13:51:16 +02:00

Hans Goudey approved these changes 2024-01-30 04:59:12 +01:00

Hans Goudey left a comment

Member

I would not add the clamping to the modifiers code when it exists in RNA, I think this is fine as is. Or even if that clamping is wanted by some, it should be discussed and added later. This will fix the crash.

I would not add the clamping to the modifiers code when it exists in RNA, I think this is fine as is. Or even if that clamping is wanted by some, it should be discussed and added later. This will fix the crash.

This pull request is marked as a work in progress.

View command line instructions.

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.

git fetch -u 93103:lichtwerk-93103

git checkout lichtwerk-93103

Sign in to join this conversation.

No reviewers

No Label

Animation & Rigging

Asset Browser Project Overview

Automated Testing

Blender Asset Bundle

Dependency Graph

Development Management

EEVEE & Viewport

Images & Movies

Motion Tracking

Nodes & Physics

Pipeline, Assets & IO

Platforms, Builds & Tests

Render & Cycles

Render Pipeline

Sculpt, Paint & Texture

Video Sequencer

Virtual Reality

Blender 2.8 Project

Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser

Good First Issue

Animation & Rigging

Development Management

EEVEE & Viewport

Nodes & Physics

Pipeline, Assets & IO

Platforms, Builds & Tests

Render & Cycles

Sculpt, Paint & Texture

Needs Info from Developers

Needs Information from User

No Milestone

No project

No Assignees

3 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#110916

No description provided.