Explicitly check for --no-sandbox in VT VDA.

Explicitly check for --no-sandbox in VT VDA.

This ensures that users passing --ignore-gpu-blacklist won't get VDA before it is ready.

BUG=396797
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=285127

[scherkus (not reviewing), 2014-07-23 20:30:54]

https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
File content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc:142:
CHECK(!VTDecompressionSessionCreate(
FYI the crash reports are hitting this CHECK()

I would think that we'd fail earlier in IsVtInitialized() if the sandbox was in
the way

OOC have you been able to reproduce the crash?

[sandersd (OOO until July 31), 2014-07-23 20:36:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
File content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc:142:
CHECK(!VTDecompressionSessionCreate(
On 2014/07/23 20:30:54, scherkus wrote:
> FYI the crash reports are hitting this CHECK()
> 
> I would think that we'd fail earlier in IsVtInitialized() if the sandbox was
in
> the way
> 
> OOC have you been able to reproduce the crash?

I can confirm that initialization can succeed inside the sandbox, the result is
that it uses its internal software decoder.

That said, I didn't attempt to reproduce this crash. It could happen if there
are additional SPS/PPS units in the first few frames, or it could be that this
method fails more often than we expect.

[sandersd (OOO until July 31), 2014-07-23 20:39:56]

On 2014/07/23 20:36:47, sandersd wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
> File content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
> content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc:142:
> CHECK(!VTDecompressionSessionCreate(
> On 2014/07/23 20:30:54, scherkus wrote:
> > FYI the crash reports are hitting this CHECK()
> > 
> > I would think that we'd fail earlier in IsVtInitialized() if the sandbox was
> in
> > the way
> > 
> > OOC have you been able to reproduce the crash?
> 
> I can confirm that initialization can succeed inside the sandbox, the result
is
> that it uses its internal software decoder.
> 
> That said, I didn't attempt to reproduce this crash. It could happen if there
> are additional SPS/PPS units in the first few frames, or it could be that this
> method fails more often than we expect.

I was able to reproduce this crash, no need to worry.

[scherkus (not reviewing), 2014-07-23 20:43:02]

On 2014/07/23 20:39:56, sandersd wrote:
> On 2014/07/23 20:36:47, sandersd wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
> > File content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc (left):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/414843002/diff/20001/content/common/gpu/media...
> > content/common/gpu/media/vt_video_decode_accelerator.cc:142:
> > CHECK(!VTDecompressionSessionCreate(
> > On 2014/07/23 20:30:54, scherkus wrote:
> > > FYI the crash reports are hitting this CHECK()
> > > 
> > > I would think that we'd fail earlier in IsVtInitialized() if the sandbox
was
> > in
> > > the way
> > > 
> > > OOC have you been able to reproduce the crash?
> > 
> > I can confirm that initialization can succeed inside the sandbox, the result
> is
> > that it uses its internal software decoder.
> > 
> > That said, I didn't attempt to reproduce this crash. It could happen if
there
> > are additional SPS/PPS units in the first few frames, or it could be that
this
> > method fails more often than we expect.
> 
> I was able to reproduce this crash, no need to worry.

thanks for verifying

lgtm

[sandersd (OOO until July 31), 2014-07-23 20:52:37]

The CQ bit was checked by sandersd@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-23 20:54:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sandersd@chromium.org/414843002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-24 01:01:23]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-24 02:51:00]

Change committed as 285127