On 12/16/11, Maans Rullgaard <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul B Mahol <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 12/16/11, Maans Rullgaard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Paul B Mahol <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> --- >>>> libavcodec/cljr.c | 6 +++--- >>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cljr.c b/libavcodec/cljr.c >>>> index a5ee738..199fd98 100644 >>>> --- a/libavcodec/cljr.c >>>> +++ b/libavcodec/cljr.c >>>> @@ -57,9 +57,9 @@ static int decode_frame(AVCodecContext *avctx, >>>> if (p->data[0]) >>>> avctx->release_buffer(avctx, p); >>>> >>>> - if (buf_size / avctx->height < avctx->width) { >>>> - av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, >>>> - "Resolution larger than buffer size. Invalid >>>> header?\n"); >>>> + if (buf_size != avctx->height * avctx->width) { >>>> + av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "got a buffer with %d bytes when %d >>>> were expected\n", >>>> + buf_size, avctx->height * avctx->width); >>> >>> These checks are not equivalent, the old version allowing an oversized >>> input packet. Is this change intentional? >> >> Oversized input packets can not be considered valid packets. > > Of course they can, if they start with a valid packet.
Same as undersized, they can still can have valid data _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
