2017-11-13 21:07 GMT+01:00 Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de>: > Am 13.11.17 um 21:06 schrieb Thilo Borgmann: >> 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? > > For convenience just send a patch that does both the changes you want to be > done...
Wieso? Das Revert und der neue Fix des ursprünglichen Issues sind doch zwei verschiedene Dinge. CE _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
