On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> 2016-12-10 14:07 GMT+01:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com>: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> 2016-12-09 12:56 GMT+01:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> > On IRC, we discussed at what values OOM start occurring, which > >> >> > seems to be around 30k-60k > >> >> > >> >> This is not true, why do you think so? > >> > > >> > http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/ > >> 2016-December/003980.html > >> > >> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/12/08/1 > >> Iiuc (which isn't sure at all) this is about 26000 streams. > > > > > > And how does that fundamentally change the discussion? The question was > > about orders of magnitude (think powers of 10), so you just changes the > > answer from log10(30k)=4.48 to log10(26k)=4.41. In both cases, a sensible > > limit is something like exp10(3) or exp10(4), but exp10(2) is not necessary > > IMHO, > > > > If we must have a pre-defined limit (which I still find a questionable > choice to limit resource usage in general, OOM itself is not an > inherently "evil" thing, perfectly valid files could cause OOM just > due to sheer size and if OOM is a crash then something else needs > fixing to check mallocs), then 1000 (ie. exp10(3)) (or 1024 because we
i think with "crash" it was meant that ffmpeg is killed by the OOM killer [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. -- Epicurus
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
