On 9/15/2019 4:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:36:32AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >> On 8/31/2019 5:47 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:57:29PM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>>> On 8/30/2019 8:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>> Fixes: Timeout (195sec -> 2ms) >>>>> Fixes: >>>>> 16735/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-ffmpeg_DEMUXER_fuzzer-5090676403863552 >>>>> >>>>> Found-by: continuous fuzzing process >>>>> https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/ffmpeg >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> >>>>> --- >>>>> libavformat/mov.c | 5 ++++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>> index 675b915906..46c544b61f 100644 >>>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>> @@ -4419,7 +4419,10 @@ static int mov_read_custom(MOVContext *c, >>>>> AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>> static int mov_read_meta(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>> { >>>>> while (atom.size > 8) { >>>>> - uint32_t tag = avio_rl32(pb); >>>>> + uint32_t tag; >>>>> + if (avio_feof(pb)) >>>>> + return AVERROR_EOF; >>>>> + tag = avio_rl32(pb); >>>>> atom.size -= 4; >>>>> if (tag == MKTAG('h','d','l','r')) { >>>>> avio_seek(pb, -8, SEEK_CUR); >>>> >>>> Maybe do something like "while (atom.size > 8 && !avio_feof(pb))" >>>> instead, which is similar to the loop in mov_read_default. >>> >>> Can do but why ? >>> the code in the patch returns an error if the atom is truncated >>> the change suggested does not return an error if the atom is truncated >>> on its own this doesnt sound better >>> >>> Thanks >> >> There's Marton's "avformat/utils: return pending IO error on EOF in >> av_read_frame()" patch to check in generic code if avio_feof() != 0 is >> an actual EOF or an IO error, so if you make this code here simply break >> the loop, same as it's done in mov_read_default(), then said generic >> code would be triggered and return the proper error code once the >> current packet is done processing. > > are you against the original patch in this thread ? > from reading this its not clear to me if you dislike the original > patch or not ? > > thanks
No, I'm not. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
