On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:59:40PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote: > Michael Niedermayer: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 03:23:40PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2021-02-15 21:31:23) > >>> Fixes: OOM > >>> Fixes: > >>> 27780/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-ffmpeg_dem_VIVIDAS_fuzzer-5097985075314688 > >>> > >>> Found-by: continuous fuzzing process > >>> https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/ffmpeg > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > >>> --- > >>> libavformat/vividas.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/libavformat/vividas.c b/libavformat/vividas.c > >>> index d745770dc4..b172a48b29 100644 > >>> --- a/libavformat/vividas.c > >>> +++ b/libavformat/vividas.c > >>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static uint8_t *read_sb_block(AVIOContext *src, > >>> unsigned *size, > >>> uint8_t *buf; > >>> uint8_t ibuf[8], sbuf[8]; > >>> uint32_t k2; > >>> - unsigned n; > >>> + int n; > >>> > >> > >> Why would that be better, when it's assigned a uint32_t? > > > > one (maybe not the only one) issue is > > if (avio_read(src, buf+8, n) < n) { > > > > avio_read() returns int and has a int size > > so this will not work at all with a unsigned int, not only will it not read > > more than INT_MAX it also when it fails with an error fail to treat it as > > an error > > > > do you prefer a diferent solution ? > > > ffio_read_size? Or just use != instead of <? Or check for n > INT_MAX > before the call?
will apply with an != check instead thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. -- Heraclitus
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".
