On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:35:34 +0100
Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/17, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> > Paul B Mahol (2017-11-30):
> >> +static int reset_links(AVFilterContext *filter)
> >> +{
> >> + int i, ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!filter)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < filter->nb_outputs; i++) {
> >> + AVFilterLink *link = filter->outputs[i];
> >> +
> >> + link->init_state = AVLINK_UNINIT;
> >> + link->frame_rate.num = link->frame_rate.den = 0;
> >> + link->w = link->h = 0;
> >> +
> >> + ret = reset_links(link->dst);
> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (!i)
> >> + return avfilter_config_links(filter);
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > Sorry, but no. All filters are currently written with the assumption
> > that config_props is called only once. Not all of them actually rely on
> > this assumption, but some do, and expect the fields of the private
> > context to be in their initial state. Violating that assumption would
> > result in a lot of memory leaks and probably a few crashes, some of them
> > security relevant.
>
> Not all filters are written with such assumption. And I would like to fix
> those
> who rely on this assumption.
SGTM
> >
> > Plus, the public API of buffersink does not document params changes and
> > does not provide a good way of reacting to it, so enabling params
> > changes like that would have problematic results on applications that
> > expect frames with all the same size.
>
> Well for that point one can always autoinsert scale filter if user does
> not set some flag when calling buffersink function.
Also SGTM.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
