On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:09:14AM +0200, Kostya Shishkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:43:03PM +0200, Laurent Aimar wrote:
> > ---
> > libavcodec/wavpack.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/libavcodec/wavpack.c b/libavcodec/wavpack.c
> > index 62f6880..0a70c4c 100644
> > --- a/libavcodec/wavpack.c
> > +++ b/libavcodec/wavpack.c
> > @@ -841,12 +841,12 @@ static int wavpack_decode_block(AVCodecContext
> > *avctx, int block_no,
> > }
> > switch(id & WP_IDF_MASK){
> > case WP_ID_DECTERMS:
> > - s->terms = size;
> > - if(s->terms > MAX_TERMS){
> > + if(size > MAX_TERMS){
> > av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Too many decorrelation
> > terms\n");
> > buf += ssize;
> > continue;
> > }
> > + s->terms = size;
> > for(i = 0; i < s->terms; i++) {
> > s->decorr[s->terms - i - 1].value = (*buf & 0x1F) - 5;
> > s->decorr[s->terms - i - 1].delta = *buf >> 5;
> > --
>
> Since s->terms is used elsewhere it's better just to set it to zero inside
> that if() IMO.
The idea was to not have a value of s->terms that is greater that the size of
the
associated array which cannot be with this patch.
I don't know if setting it to 0 here make sense or if it wouldn't be better to
set
it to 0 elsewhere as I am not the maintainer.
--
fenrir
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
