Christophe Gisquet <christophe.gisquet <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > - if( avctx->bits_per_raw_sample )
> > + if ( avctx->bits_per_raw_sample
> > + &&
> > av_pix_fmt_desc_get(avctx->pix_fmt)->comp[0].depth_minus1 > 7)
> > maxdepth = (1 << avctx->bits_per_raw_sample) - 1;
>
> So bits_per_raw_sample can be != 0 but kind of wrong in
> some 8 bits cases? Do you have an example for this?
No, I was just too lazy to implement 8bit, partly
because I don't know how to test, partly because I
wasn't entirely happy about your patch (being applied).
> + int bps_delta =
> av_pix_fmt_desc_get(avctx->pix_fmt)->comp[0].depth_minus1 + 1 -
> avctx->bits_per_raw_sample;
> + if (!avctx->bits_per_raw_sample || !bps_delta) {
>
> Could this be moved out the loop (the compiler should do it, but...) ?
That should be done, yes.
> Second point, can this get negative? I don't think so
> because it means something would be seriously wrong.
Yes, but it doesn't look like a security issue to me.
> I think "[PATCH 2/5] pnmenc: use bits_per_raw_sample"
> is wrong then
Definitely, I still wonder how you tested it.
> or there's maybe an endianess issue somewhere.
I don't think so, at least I don't see any indication.
Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
