Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Revenge On Reverse Engineering

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    We can't use that architecture for "real" HD decoding, since we would be legally obligated to protect the video data that comes out of the decoder and that's kinda hard to do in an open driver, but it might be a possibility for using UVD on non-HD content if we could properly tamper-proof the binary. The obvious downside is that it's a heck of a lot easier to reverse engineer a single module than a 20 MB driver stack, and if we felt that we could safely release the info we would rather just give it to you than make you dance for it
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-03-2008, 05:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      We can't use that architecture for "real" HD decoding, since we would be legally obligated to protect the video data that comes out of the decoder and that's kinda hard to do in an open driver, but it might be a possibility for using UVD on non-HD content if we could properly tamper-proof the binary. The obvious downside is that it's a heck of a lot easier to reverse engineer a single module than a 20 MB driver stack, and if we felt that we could safely release the info we would rather just give it to you than make you dance for it
      i understand very well your point, but i'll ask you this: what use could be there for reverse eng the modules if someone gives you them working well?! why would someone do reverse eng on something that is working well and loose time doing this? i think it's a stupid thing.
      anyway, i agree with you that releasing something that could break your legal obligation with someone else is a stupid thing. well, i hope that amd will come out with some idea to fix this in the future.

      Comment


      • #23
        I'd be perfectly fine with a blob for video decoding. I understand the issues here. I hope eventually the industry will wise up and realize that DRM doesn't work, but until that happens, I'd really like to have hardware accelerated video decoding, and if it can't be free, then proprietary is fine.

        I don't expect Richard Stallman would agree, but I think it's best for everyone if free and propietary software coexist.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
          here i am again asking for some clarification about revenge:
          is there some documentation on how to use it?
          i've tried looking around the web for some hours but haven't yet found a list of options or something that could help me start it and when i start revenge it says that the option that i want is not recognized.
          i think that if someone doesn't start to write some help on the matter it won't be so useful in the end.
          There isn't very much documentation right now; I really should write some. There
          is a README included with the latest Revenge from Git. I don't remember whether
          it's included in the last release...

          When I add PCI-ID based card detection a lot of the nastiness from interface
          switches (AGP, PCI-E, etc) will disappear, but I haven't done that yet.

          Btw, the email address in the README currently isn't setup, so you should send
          dumps to me directly.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            We can't use that architecture for "real" HD decoding, since we would be legally obligated to protect the video data that comes out of the decoder and that's kinda hard to do in an open driver, but it might be a possibility for using UVD on non-HD content if we could properly tamper-proof the binary. The obvious downside is that it's a heck of a lot easier to reverse engineer a single module than a 20 MB driver stack, and if we felt that we could safely release the info we would rather just give it to you than make you dance for it
            Why can't we have true HD acceleration of non-DRM'd content?

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Why can't we have true HD acceleration of non-DRM'd content?
              because releasing specs for the free hd video acceleration would let reverse engineering reveal how the drm works in a matter of no time and because usually the hd content (until now) was protected by drm, which is on its last moments of life after sony, the last drm sustainer, has declared that would abandon drm for some of its content - the news is on linux journal breaking news (http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1006011 ) while the article to which it refers is available directly on business week: http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...013_398775.htm .
              so for example if amd would reveal how udv works for the free part
              on monday someone would have commit a patch to the radeon for the
              drm part. at least that's what i've understood from john's explanation on the matter.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                We can't use that architecture for "real" HD decoding, since we would be legally obligated to protect the video data that comes out of the decoder and that's kinda hard to do in an open driver, but it might be a possibility for using UVD on non-HD content if we could properly tamper-proof the binary. The obvious downside is that it's a heck of a lot easier to reverse engineer a single module than a 20 MB driver stack, and if we felt that we could safely release the info we would rather just give it to you than make you dance for it
                Funny thing how DRM in the end only screws the costumer ;-)

                Comment


                • #28
                  So hold on, let me get this straight... We are talking about DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) not DRM (Direct Rendering Manager).... Is that correct?

                  If so why cant you just bypass the frontend altogether and just let all those stream processors handle HD decoding directly through something like CTM? Or maybe through an abstraction layer like GLSL or something similar?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Yes, DRM like digital rights management.

                    Video decoding isn't the greatest fit with the kind of work stream processors can do, or at least nobody has figured out how to find sufficient parallelism in the decoding workload to take real advantage of the shader power. Having said that, there's a big difference between inefficient and impossible.

                    The biggest issue, I think, is that we do use the shaders pretty heavily for the rendering part of the playback pipeline so I'm not sure how much shader horespower is left on the 2400/2600 anyways.

                    Good question though...

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I thought DRM was implemented though encryption of the encoded video data? So, to play DRM protected video, the stream has to be (roughly):

                      1) Unencrypted
                      2) Decoded
                      3) Rendered

                      Is this not right? If it is right, what is the problem with implementing 2) and 3) in the oss driver? (A pointer to a document explaining the problem would be appreciated, if such exist.)

                      I can see one other reason not to release the specs for video hw decoding on a system that is not able to play DRM'd material: it would raise the demand for undamaged material even more, thus making it even more popular to download movies in a sane format over, say, bittorrent.

                      *rant*

                      This whole thing is just sick - why not release the movies in an open, playable format that people can USE? I and many, many others would gladly pay for it!

                      *rant off*

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X