On 7/9/2023 9:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
From the spec: "It is a requirement of bitstream conformance that the value of luma_bit_depth_entry_minus8 shall be equal to the value of bit_depth_luma_minus8"; similarly for chroma.Should fix Coverity ticket #1529226. Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> --- libavcodec/hevc_ps.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/libavcodec/hevc_ps.c b/libavcodec/hevc_ps.c index 4c4c1e2c17..1db2d3a242 100644 --- a/libavcodec/hevc_ps.c +++ b/libavcodec/hevc_ps.c @@ -1581,11 +1581,13 @@ static int pps_scc_extension(GetBitContext *gb, AVCodecContext *avctx, } pps->monochrome_palette_flag = get_bits1(gb); pps->luma_bit_depth_entry = get_ue_golomb_31(gb) + 8; - if (!pps->monochrome_palette_flag) - pps->chroma_bit_depth_entry = get_ue_golomb_31(gb) + 8; - - if (pps->chroma_bit_depth_entry > 16 || pps->chroma_bit_depth_entry > 16)
Is Coverity complaining about this duplicate check? If so, you should mention that fixing the Coverity issue is a side effect of the compliance check you're applying, rather than the actual objective of the change.
You could also replace one chroma_bit_depth_entry check with luma_bit_depth_entry in one commit, fixing the Coverity issue, then this compliance change in another.
+ if (pps->luma_bit_depth_entry != sps->bit_depth) return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA; + if (!pps->monochrome_palette_flag) { + pps->chroma_bit_depth_entry = get_ue_golomb_31(gb) + 8; + if (pps->chroma_bit_depth_entry != sps->bit_depth_chroma) + return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA; + }num_comps = pps->monochrome_palette_flag ? 1 : 3;for (int comp = 0; comp < num_comps; comp++) {
LGTM either way. _______________________________________________ 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".
