Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 22:48 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 4/11/2020 8:53 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> > <ceffm...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 14:03 Uhr schrieb Michael Niedermayer
> >> <mich...@niedermayer.cc>:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:46:36AM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >>>> Hi!
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached patch makes the alloc array functions more similar to
> >>>> av_malloc, depending on max_alloc_size instead of INT_MAX.
> >>>>
> >>>> Allows a work-around for ticket #7140
> >>>>
> >>>> Please comment, Carl Eugen
> >>>
> >>>> mem.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>> 507531ed6f0932834d005bc1dd7d18e762f158b2
> >>>> 0001-lavu-mem-Make-alloc-array-functions-more-similar-to-.patch
> >>>> From 7ae240a9f7885130251031aba5d0764b11947fec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>>> From: Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 00:37:03 +0200
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH] lavu/mem: Make alloc array functions more similar to
> >>>> av_malloc().
> >>>>
> >>>> Do not limit the array allocation functions to allocations of INT_MAX,
> >>>> instead depend on max_alloc_size like av_malloc().
> >>>>
> >>>> Allows a workaround for ticket #7140.
> >>>> ---
> >>>> libavutil/mem.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> av_size_mult() may be faster
> >>
> >> New patch attached.
> >
> > And an actually working variant.
> >
> > Please comment, Carl Eugen
>
> > From 643c501d6698d7d17e47a9f907165649f1446fa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 00:36:30 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] lavu/mem: Make other alloc functions more similar to
> > av_malloc().
> >
> > Do not limit the array allocation functions and av_calloc() to allocations
> > of INT_MAX, instead depend on max_alloc_size like av_malloc().
> >
> > Allows a workaround for ticket #7140.
> > ---
> > libavutil/mem.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/libavutil/mem.c b/libavutil/mem.c
> > index 88fe09b179..e044374c62 100644
> > --- a/libavutil/mem.c
> > +++ b/libavutil/mem.c
> > @@ -183,23 +183,26 @@ int av_reallocp(void *ptr, size_t size)
> >
> > void *av_malloc_array(size_t nmemb, size_t size)
> > {
> > - if (!size || nmemb >= INT_MAX / size)
> > + size_t result;
> > + if (av_size_mult(nmemb, size, &result) < 0)
> > return NULL;
> > - return av_malloc(nmemb * size);
> > + return av_malloc(result);
>
> If I'm reading this right, when size is 0, instead of NULL this will now
> return av_malloc(0), which looks like it may end up being a pointer to a
> 1 byte big buffer. Is that intended?
>
> The previous version you sent apparently considered that scenario.
But it did not pass fate because the behaviour before the patch
was not to return NULL for alloc(0).
Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
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".
