On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 22:53 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> > the content is sa
On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Andreas Rhein
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1095962
> >>
> >> This seems to be caused by
Michael Niedermayer:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1095962
>>
>> This seems to be caused by the custom handling of "av_max_alloc(0)" in
>> Chromium's ffmpeg fork to mean
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1095962
>
> This seems to be caused by the custom handling of "av_max_alloc(0)" in
> Chromium's ffmpeg fork to mean unlimited (added in [1]).
>
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:10 AM Joakim Tjernlund <
joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com> wrote:
> We unbundle the ffmpeg/mesa and use system mesa/ffmpeg
That's the answer to my earlier question also, thank you. I'm fine with
applying this, I would suggest that the "new" (correct) behaviour should
On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 15:05 +0100, Moritz Barsnick wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 14:08:23 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > No it doesn't. It forces them to upgrade away from a known vulnerable
> > > old Chromium version to one that does not have the issue.
> >
> > I was referring to what
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 14:08:23 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > No it doesn't. It forces them to upgrade away from a known vulnerable
> > old Chromium version to one that does not have the issue.
>
> I was referring to what is out/released now. Eventually all SW will upgrade
> for one reason o
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 13:38 -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>
> Hi Joakim,
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joakim Tjernlund <
> joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> > >
> > > Timo Rothenpieler:
> > > > Given the multitude o
Hi Joakim,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joakim Tjernlund <
joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> >
> > Timo Rothenpieler:
> > > Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
> > > Browsers, is this even s
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 12:47 +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>
> On 04.11.2020 10:55, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 10:51 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:38:52PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> > > > Timo Rothenpieler:
> > > > > Given
On 04.11.2020 10:55, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 10:51 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:38:52PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
Timo Rothenpieler:
Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
Browsers, is this even stil
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 10:51 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:38:52PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> > Timo Rothenpieler:
> > > Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
> > > Browsers, is this even still an issue?
> > > Anything not
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:38:52PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> Timo Rothenpieler:
> > Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
> > Browsers, is this even still an issue?
> > Anything not up to date enough to have already been fixed has serious
> > security issu
Joakim Tjernlund:
> On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>>
>> Timo Rothenpieler:
>>> Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
>>> Browsers, is this even still an issue?
>>> Anything not up to date enough to have already been fixed has serious
On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>
> Timo Rothenpieler:
> > Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
> > Browsers, is this even still an issue?
> > Anything not up to date enough to have already been fixed has serious
> > security issues a
Timo Rothenpieler:
> Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
> Browsers, is this even still an issue?
> Anything not up to date enough to have already been fixed has serious
> security issues and should be updated ASAP, which also fixes this issue
> in turn.
>
> I'd
On 11/3/2020 10:19 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 10:05 -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>
>> On 11/3/2020 9:12 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>>> Quoting Joakim Tjernlund (2020-11-03 12:39:53)
Pretty please ?
>>>
>>> ok, would people who are strongly against this patch please raise t
On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 10:05 -0300, James Almer wrote:
>
> On 11/3/2020 9:12 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Joakim Tjernlund (2020-11-03 12:39:53)
> > > Pretty please ?
> >
> > ok, would people who are strongly against this patch please raise their
> > hands.
>
> Would applying this to mast
On 11/3/2020 9:12 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Joakim Tjernlund (2020-11-03 12:39:53)
>> Pretty please ?
>
> ok, would people who are strongly against this patch please raise their
> hands.
Would applying this to master now (backporting it to 4.3 too) and then
reverting it at the time of th
Given the multitude of recent serious security issues in Chromium-Based
Browsers, is this even still an issue?
Anything not up to date enough to have already been fixed has serious
security issues and should be updated ASAP, which also fixes this issue
in turn.
I'd rather see downstream users
Quoting Joakim Tjernlund (2020-11-03 12:39:53)
> Pretty please ?
ok, would people who are strongly against this patch please raise their
hands.
Personally I'm ok with pushing this, even though it's ugly. Then again
the vey existence of av_malloc_max is ugly and it should be deprecated
IMO.
--
A
Pretty please ?
Jocke
On Thu, 2020-10-29 at 13:46 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> Ping ..
>
> On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 08:48 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Yet a ping ...
> >
> > This is a simple technical patch, it just needs a policy decision.
> > Can I have one ?
> >
> > Jocke
Ping ..
On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 08:48 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> Yet a ping ...
>
> This is a simple technical patch, it just needs a policy decision.
> Can I have one ?
>
> Jocke
>
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 14:17 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ping ?
> >
> > Jocke
> >
> > On Fri
Yet a ping ...
This is a simple technical patch, it just needs a policy decision.
Can I have one ?
Jocke
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 14:17 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Ping ?
>
> Jocke
>
> On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 10:57 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromiu
Ping ?
Jocke
On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 10:57 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1095962
>
> This seems to be caused by the custom handling of "av_max_alloc(0)" in
> Chromium's ffmpeg fork to mean unlimited (added i
From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1095962
This seems to be caused by the custom handling of "av_max_alloc(0)" in
Chromium's ffmpeg fork to mean unlimited (added in [1]).
Upstream ffmpeg doesn't treat 0 as a special value; versions before 4.3
s
27 matches
Mail list logo
