On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 20:11 +0200, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote: > > Joakim Tjernlund: > > On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 15:24 +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote: > > > > > > On 13/10/2020 15:19, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > For now just fixing av_malloc_max(0) will do, av_max_malloc2() etc. is > > > > beyond this patch. > > > > > > As Ronald mentioned, if you're going to fix the ABI/API, you should > > > actually > > > fix every use of that ABI/API, not just the one you care about (0). > > > > > > So max values of 1-31 should also be handled. > > > > OK, how far do you want to take this, will this do? > > if (max < 32) > > max = INT_MAX; > > > > The old behaviour was to effectively limit allocations to max - 32 in > this case (near to SIZE_MAX), not to INT_MAX. And it does not restore > default behaviour (the effective default limit was INT_MAX - 32). > > > Complete API fix would need to revert the patch that caused the break to > > begin with and I don't think you want that ? > > > Actually the old behaviour was against the documented API (or where do > you see the 32 mentioned in the docs?).
The old behaviour in code, what the docs say isn't relevant to a failing app. > > - Andreas > > PS: My rationale for this patch was to match actual behaviour and > documented behaviour and to make the full range of INT available for > allocations if the maximum has not been overridden by av_max_alloc(). > Otherwise allocations of e.g. packets with sizes in the range (INT_MAX - > 31 - AV_INPUT_BUFFER_PADDING_SIZE)..(INT_MAX - > AV_INPUT_BUFFER_PADDING_SIZE) will fail. Please suggest a patch to your liking, I am just trying to repair the breakage, I am not a ffmpeg dev. Jocke _______________________________________________ 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".
