On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-08-10 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com>: > > Are we using the checked bitstream reader? If we are, we're fine already... > > I think we are. On the other hand, it seems the top caller, > ff_hevc_decode_nal_vps, is never checking if we have read past the > bitstream end. Shouldn't this be checked at the very end? Hitting the > bitstream end yet not reporting invalid data at some point looks weird > to me. > > So, I'm just not sure this always yields vps/sps/... info, so catching > it might be good. On the other hand, this doesn't help catching bugs > in the code elsewhere. > > > If not, maybe we should, because let's be honest, getbits is only in > > headers, so it's not particularly performance-sensitive. > > And this is high-level syntax (think sps), so indeed.
agree with all should i apply the patch or apply something else ? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
