On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Alex Converse <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> They cause various issues further down in demuxing. >>>> --- >>>> libavformat/asfdec.c | 6 +++++- >>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/libavformat/asfdec.c b/libavformat/asfdec.c >>>> index 2922ecf..01411fa 100644 >>>> --- a/libavformat/asfdec.c >>>> +++ b/libavformat/asfdec.c >>>> @@ -202,6 +202,8 @@ static int asf_read_file_properties(AVFormatContext >>>> *s, int64_t size) >>>> asf->hdr.flags = avio_rl32(pb); >>>> asf->hdr.min_pktsize = avio_rl32(pb); >>>> asf->hdr.max_pktsize = avio_rl32(pb); >>>> + if (asf->hdr.min_pktsize >= (1U<<29)) >>>> + return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA; >> >> This >= why in your last similar patch did you use strictly >? > > Oversight. I think >= is more correct. >
LGTM _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
