On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Kostya Shishkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:56:09AM -0700, John Brooks wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Kostya Shishkov >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:23:01AM -0700, John Brooks wrote: >> >> @@ -799,8 +800,9 @@ static void vc1_mc_4mv_luma(VC1Context *v, int n, int >> >> dir) >> >> if (fieldmv && (src_y & 1) && src_y < 4) >> >> src_y--; >> >> if (v->rangeredfrm || (v->mv_mode == MV_PMODE_INTENSITY_COMP) >> >> + || s->h_edge_pos - s->mspel * 2 < 11 >> >> || (unsigned)(src_x - s->mspel) > s->h_edge_pos - (mx & 3) - 8 - >> >> s->mspel * 2 >> >> - || (unsigned)(src_y - (s->mspel << fieldmv)) > v_edge_pos - (my >> >> & 3) - ((8 + s->mspel * 2) << fieldmv)) { >> >> + || (unsigned)(src_y - (s->mspel << fieldmv)) > FFMAX(v_edge_pos >> >> - (my & 3) - ((8 + s->mspel * 2) << fieldmv), 0)) { >> > >> > this particular change should be not needed anymore or what? >> > >> >> This case is particularly complex, and I couldn't find any succinct >> way to test it without making assumptions about s->mspel or fieldmv >> (which I'm not personally comfortable doing). If either of those is >> just a flag (I haven't looked), it should be easy enough, but I don't >> mind leaving one FFMAX, either. > > Just assume it, it shouldn't do much harm (it's only 23 in the most pessimal > case).
Attached. > _______________________________________________ > libav-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
0001-vc1dec-fix-invalid-memory-access-for-small-video-dim.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
