On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Mickaël Raulet wrote: > 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.
applied thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
