On 4/2/2024 7:22 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024, James Almer wrote:
On 4/1/2024 8:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 06:33:22PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 4/1/2024 5:56 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Fixes: memleak
Fixes:
67442/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-ffmpeg_dem_CAF_fuzzer-5068813261406208
Found-by: continuous fuzzing process
https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/ffmpeg
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>
---
libavformat/isom.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/libavformat/isom.c b/libavformat/isom.c
index 9fbccd4437f..c5930bd4d87 100644
--- a/libavformat/isom.c
+++ b/libavformat/isom.c
@@ -359,6 +359,7 @@ int ff_mp4_read_dec_config_descr(AVFormatContext
*fc, AVStream *st, AVIOContext
st->codecpar->extradata_size,
1, fc);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
+ av_channel_layout_uninit(&st->codecpar->ch_layout);
st->codecpar->ch_layout.order =
AV_CHANNEL_ORDER_UNSPEC;
Not strictly related to this fix, but should we really drop the layout
here
by forcing unspec? We're also not even bothering to check if
cfg.channels
matches st->codecpar->ch_layout.nb_channels.
I was wondering the same.
I was hoping someone would know the specs well enouh to just say
straight
"this and that isnt legal together error out if thats true"
Maybe Marton knows, since he's been working on this code.
I don't really know for sure. But it would make sense to me to only drop
the layout if the channel count is different from what we already know.
Ok, just did that, and also applied Michael's memleak fix. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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".
