Am 13.11.17 um 20:02 schrieb Umair Khan: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> 2017-11-12 20:30 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com>: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> 2017-11-12 20:05 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The attached patch fixes the address sanitizer issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Breaks compilation here, how did you test? >>>>>> >>>>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c: In function ‘decode_var_block_data’: >>>>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c:938:7: error: expected ‘}’ before ‘else’ >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the faulty patch. Here is the fixed one. >>>> >>>> The commit message of your patch is: >>>> libavcodec/als: fix address sanitization error in decoder >>>> >>>> Is there an error in current FFmpeg git head that asan >>>> shows? If not, the commit message makes no sense. >>>> >>>> I believe you should send two patches that are meant >>>> to be committed together, one of them fixing ticket #6297. >>> >>> This is the complete patchset. >> >> I need some days to find time to test this, earliest during the weekend I >> fear... >> >> What happens for >> block_length < residual_index < opt_order? > > I didn't really understand this case. What's residual_index? Can you > point to the source exactly? > > As far as the case where opt_order is more than block_length, my > second patch handles that case only. The file which Michael sent was > having asan issues because of the case when block_length < opt_order. > >> Another way of asking would be, where is the second loop from specs page 30 >> for that case? >> (ISO/IEC 14496) > > The second loop is just converting parcor to lpc coefficients which is > done here - > https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/libavcodec/alsdec.c#L935 > >> I think what puzzles CE is, that the problematic if() from the other patches >> is still untouched by your patch. So how could this be a valid solution even >> if your patch would actually improve the prediction part... >> And I wonder the same ;) > > As said, it is valid to have opt_order greater than block_length. > However, the decoder loop needs to be checked because we won't predict > values more than the length of the block i.e., block_length. We use > last K (prediction order, opt_order) values to predict the original K > values of the current block. > >> Did you run FATE with your patch applied? I assume a big difference in >> output at the first glance (means FATE aks the conformance files should >> fail...) > > Yes. I did run FATE. It passes perfectly. > >> Thanks for driving this forward anyway :) > > I think the two patches fix the issues completely. I don't see any > harm in applying this patchset. :)
Which second patch exactly do you want to be applied along with this one? -Thilo _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
