Hi Le 10 août 2014 à 15:48, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> a écrit :
> 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 ? > This can be applied. Mickaël _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel