On 11.12.2016 21:45, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 11.12.2016 21:03, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun >> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On 11.12.2016 10:04, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >>>> I still see the problem that this option code does not know which >>>> pix_fmt the numbers relate to and as such would keep the old limit in >>>> place despite there being no technical reasons for it. >>> >>> And I still think that av_image_check_size should be changed to >>> accept the largest value valid for any pixel format (once every place >>> needing stricter limits is switched to the pixel format sensitive >>> check). >>> Do you disagree with this or what is your point? >> >> I could probably live with a simple w*h overflow check (more or less), >> which av_image_check_size then probably would end up being if I >> understand you right? > > I don't think so. For example, av_image_check_size2 accepts resolutions > like 100000x80000 for AV_PIX_FMT_MONOWHITE and thus av_image_check_size > should also accept this, even though the number of pixels is larger > than INT_MAX. However, that's not the current state of affairs, so > until the work is done to actually use the pixel format specific limits, > the option code should check for the old limit. > >> Thats much higher then the current limit in most cases and while we >> should try to move this to size_t/ptrdiff_t eventually to lift the >> limit even higher on 64-bit platforms, its OK for now. > > Note that av_image_check_size is documented to check that > "all bytes of the image can be addressed with a signed int", > so increasing the limit higher requires using a different function.
I assume I've convinced you, so I'll apply this patch soon, unless I hear back from you. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel