Quoting Gyan (2020-01-17 10:40:22) > > > On 16-01-2020 09:07 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Quoting Gyan Doshi (2020-01-16 13:59:47) > >> --- > >> libavfilter/vf_scale.c | 6 ++---- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_scale.c b/libavfilter/vf_scale.c > >> index d46c767e70..70978345e8 100644 > >> --- a/libavfilter/vf_scale.c > >> +++ b/libavfilter/vf_scale.c > >> @@ -498,10 +498,8 @@ static int config_props(AVFilterLink *outlink) > >> scale->force_original_aspect_ratio, > >> scale->force_divisible_by); > >> > >> - if (scale->w > INT_MAX || > >> - scale->h > INT_MAX || > >> - (scale->h * inlink->w) > INT_MAX || > >> - (scale->w * inlink->h) > INT_MAX) > >> + if (((int64_t)scale->h * inlink->w) > INT_MAX || > >> + ((int64_t)scale->w * inlink->h) > INT_MAX) > > This only works when int is 32bit, which is not guaranteed to be true. > > The correct way to test it is something like > > if (scale->h > INT_MAX / inlink->w) > > Makes sense. I took my cue from similar checks in other scale filters. > Should convert those too. > > Although I do wonder why this check exists at this time. All it results > in is a log msg; any invalid values aren't adjusted. Should this be > replaced with av_image_check_size2 or is there another reason for this > check?
Yeah, the check seems useless and it's been there since the beginning. I assume it was intended to avoid overflow in the aspect ratio calculation. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".