Hi Umair, On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Umair, > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I tested the file which Michael sent. The thing is that I'm getting > >> error in decoding that file in both the cases, with or without the > >> patch. I will begin debugging this issue, however I think the file > >> which Michael sent has got nothing to do with the patch in this > >> thread. > >> > > > > I don't think the file is meant to be decoded correctly, it's a specially > > crafted file to demonstrate that certain codepaths (triggered by files > such > > as this) can be used to trigger unwanted behaviour (overreads, > overwrites, > > etc.). Eventually, combinations of such files can be used to break into > > your system with specially crafted media files (yes, really). > > > > Your patch introduces such a security issue (since it's triggered by the > > file after, but not before the patch). This must be fixed before the > patch > > can be committed. > > Okay. You mean the file isn't supposed to be decoded and that the als > decoder should output the proper error message instead of breaking at > a random point. Am I getting it correct? > More specifically: after your patch, you'll notice that address sanitizer (clang -fsanitize=address) or valgrind output warnings when decoding this file. These warnings should be tracked down and fixed. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
