Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Fix for possible buffer overflow.

From: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Fix for possible buffer overflow.
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:05:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20220106090551.GY2829255@pb2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220106004341.C06AC3F170@m2osw.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1212 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 04:26:09PM -0800, AlexisWilke wrote:
> If it is true that the (index + c) can be larger than s->limiter_buf_size
> then the overflow potential has to be handled in the previous two statements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AlexisWilke <alexis@m2osw.com>
> ---
>  libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c b/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> index dbe7fba986..9e6a830a56 100644
> --- a/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> +++ b/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> @@ -206,10 +206,11 @@ static void detect_peak(LoudNormContext *s, int offset, int nb_samples, int chan
>                      continue;
>  
>                  for (c = 0; c < channels; c++) {
> -                    if (c == 0 || fabs(buf[index + c]) > max_peak)
> -                        max_peak = fabs(buf[index + c]);

> +                    int idx((index + c) < s->limiter_buf_size ? (index + c) : (index + c - s->limiter_buf_size));

which compiler did build this successfully ?

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".