On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:12:47PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > Fixes: crash > > Fixes: check_pkt.mp4 > > > > Found-by: Rafael Dutra <rafael.du...@cispa.de> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > --- > > libavcodec/h264_slice.c | 5 ++--- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_slice.c b/libavcodec/h264_slice.c > > index 14b945756b..910d8b8848 100644 > > --- a/libavcodec/h264_slice.c > > +++ b/libavcodec/h264_slice.c > > @@ -304,9 +304,8 @@ int ff_h264_update_thread_context(AVCodecContext *dst, > > if (dst == src) > > return 0; > > > > - // We can't fail if SPS isn't set at it breaks current skip_frame code > > - //if (!h1->ps.sps) > > - // return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA; > > + if (inited && !h1->ps.sps) > > + return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA; > > > > Any considerations for the removed comment?
Without the inited, i could reproduce a skip_frame failure, replicating what i assumed the comment meant. With inited, the next lines would determine if we need to reinit but without h1->ps.sps the current set of checks have a good chance of dereferencing a null pointer. So this looks like a clean failure is better. And unlikely that was occuring in any use case. So i think the comment, at least as written is not correct. Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If you think the mosad wants you dead since a long time then you are either wrong or dead since a long time.
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".
