On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 at 02:06, Kacper Michajlow <kaspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 10:59, Michael Niedermayer
> <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > Sponsored-by: Sovereign Tech Fund
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> > tools/target_enc_fuzzer.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/target_enc_fuzzer.c b/tools/target_enc_fuzzer.c
> > index 059d7830710..59c2db4bb42 100644
> > --- a/tools/target_enc_fuzzer.c
> > +++ b/tools/target_enc_fuzzer.c
> > @@ -149,6 +149,8 @@ int LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(const uint8_t *data, size_t
> > size) {
> > av_dict_set_int(&opts, "coder", coder, 0);
> > av_dict_set_int(&opts, "context",
> > bytestream2_get_byte(&gbc)&1, 0);
> > av_dict_set_int(&opts, "slicecrc",
> > bytestream2_get_byte(&gbc)&1, 0);
> > + ctx->slices = bytestream2_get_byte(&gbc);
> > + ctx->level = bytestream2_get_byte(&gbc) % 6 - 1;
>
> Note sure that's correct. Depending on the codec numeric level value
> may differ, but generally it has higher value. Like 62 for "6.2" in
> h264 case, or 186 for "6.2" for h265 case. I would just remove `% 6 -
> 1` and let fuzzer find interesting values for each codec.
Oh, sorry. From the diff I couldn't see that it is in `case
AV_CODEC_ID_FFV1`, so my remark is invalid. Still might be useful to
also test invalid `level` values.
> - Kacper
>
> > break;}
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.45.2
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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".
_______________________________________________
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".
