On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 00:37, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 06:14:07AM +0000, South East wrote: > > Hi all - what do I need to do to progress this? > > iam a bit overloaded with work ATM, but bayer or interlacing combined with > jpeg gives me memories of segfaults. So maybe you can run this through some > fuzzer > with some samples that trigger the code pathes > to check it a bit
Thanks. I have experience with AFL so this is practical for me. The likely output is a collection of samples that will improve code coverage, focussing on MLV and DNG files. Does ffmpeg use AFL for testing already? I would expect to make local code modifications to ffmpeg in order to improve speed of fuzzing (see e.g. __AFL_LOOP). Would you want those changes? It should be obvious they do something because of improved code coverage, perhaps that is enough. I would expect testing with ffplay (with an ASAN enabled build) would be an acceptable scope (there is no encoder for MLV). Is that assumption correct? I would guess we are only interested in new problems when the patches are applied, i.e., if I discover old flaws, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether my patches are accepted. Beyond that, what would you consider evidence of adequate testing? _______________________________________________ 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".
