On 10.12.2016 17:29, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun > <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> If that is done, the hard limit in av_image_check_size should check for >> the maximum allowed value of any pixel format. >> But a check here is needed to make sure that width * height doesn't overflow. > > Why is that needed?
Because the framework currently doesn't support larger sizes and setting options to invalid values doesn't make much sense. > Also, overflow what range exactly? int64? The range of valid image dimension, which is what av_image_check_size is documented to check. > The generic option code should not make any assumptions how the data is > going to be used. As long as its not multiplied right here and now, > there is no reason to check. It's a valid assumption that an option of type AV_OPT_TYPE_IMAGE_SIZE is used as image size, so it shouldn't accept values that are invalid dimensions in our framework. Also it already doesn't accept negative values. Would you prefer to remove this check? > As said in an earlier mail, the check doesn't negate the need to check > in other places, because AVOption is only one way to set values, so I > would rather prefer avoiding adding more artificial limits in very > generic code. The alternative is that every program setting the image size needs to check if it is valid before setting the option. That's quite inconvenient. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
