On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:39:00PM +0000, Zane van Iperen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 21:37:54 +0200
> "Michael Niedermayer" <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> > > > > @@ -1304,6 +1329,13 @@ static int
> > > > > adpcm_decode_frame(AVCodecContext *avctx, void *data, samples
> > > > > += avctx->channels; }
> > > > > break;
> > > > > + case AV_CODEC_ID_ADPCM_IMA_CUNNING:
> > > > > + while (bytestream2_get_bytes_left(&gb) > 0) {
> > > > > + int v = bytestream2_get_byteu(&gb);
> > > > > + *samples++ =
> > > > > adpcm_ima_cunning_expand_nibble(&c->status[0], v & 0x0F);
> > > > > + *samples++ =
> > > > > adpcm_ima_cunning_expand_nibble(&c->status[0], v >> 4);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + break;
> > > >
> > > > i would add an av_assert to ensure the samples array is large
> > > > enough and the code seting it stays in sync. And also so the
> > > > reader knows at a glance that this is ok with only a check on the
> > > > input size
> > >
> > > So, something like this?
> > > av_assert0(frame->nb_samples == buf_size * 2);
> >
> > as the loop runs bytestream2_get_bytes_left(&gb) iterations
> > the check should be between that and nb_samples i think
>
> In that case, would it just be better to change the while() to a for()?
> Same thing, but it shows the samples/nb_samples relationship.
yes
>
> for (n = 0; n < nb_samples / 2; n++) {}
>
> There's a few other decoders that use the same while() I did
> originally, so it might be worth changing them too.
yes i think so too
thanks
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
