Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-11-06 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 02.11.2016 23:09, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > In the absence of further comments, I intend to push this set in a few days. I've pushed this now. Best regards, Andreas ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/lis

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-11-02 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 26.10.2016 21:44, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 26.10.2016 20:15, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> On 10/25/16, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:45:25PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: > patch(es)have good intent, but better fix i

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-26 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 26.10.2016 20:15, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 10/25/16, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:45:25PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >>> On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: patch(es)have good intent, but better fix is doing/checking it in single place. >>> >>> I

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-26 Thread Paul B Mahol
On 10/25/16, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:45:25PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> > patch(es)have good intent, but better fix is doing/checking it in single >> > place. >> >> I don't agree. >> In general, validity checks sho

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-25 Thread Michael Niedermayer
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:45:25PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > patch(es)have good intent, but better fix is doing/checking it in single > > place. > > I don't agree. > In general, validity checks should be where the values are actually read. > Th

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-25 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: > patch(es)have good intent, but better fix is doing/checking it in single > place. I don't agree. In general, validity checks should be where the values are actually read. This eliminates the risk that bogus values could cause problems between being set

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-25 Thread Paul B Mahol
On 10/23/16, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > A negative sample rate doesn't make sense and triggers assertions in > av_rescale_rnd. > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Cadhalpun > --- > libavformat/adxdec.c | 5 + > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/libavformat/adxdec.c b/libavformat/adxdec

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/12] adxdec: validate sample_rate

2016-10-23 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
A negative sample rate doesn't make sense and triggers assertions in av_rescale_rnd. Signed-off-by: Andreas Cadhalpun --- libavformat/adxdec.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/libavformat/adxdec.c b/libavformat/adxdec.c index cf44531..0315ecb 100644 --- a/libavformat/adxd