[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/snowdec: Check intra block dc differences.

James Almer jamrial at gmail.com
Fri Nov 17 04:13:27 EET 2017

On 11/16/2017 10:43 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:47:55PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc
>>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:21:19PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Michael Niedermayer <
>>>> michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:26:06AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
>>> ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 2017-11-16 4:06 GMT+01:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> So, commit it without the error message? I really don't see the
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>> As explained, the issue is that without an error message, it
>>>>>>> is impossible to parse any related bug report.
>>>>>> We've been OK with that situation so far. Since it only happens for
>>>>> fuzzed
>>>>>> files, it's OK to continue going like that.
>>>>> Thats not the case, the snow spec contains no limit in the place where
>>>>> we need to check. Its a natural and expected limit so likely all files
>>>>> will be within that but a file outside would still be arguably valid.
>>>>> So a valid file could potentially be outside this range and the
>>>>> maintainer (that being me) need to know about this.
>>>>> Please dont see every change that originated from a fuzzer generated
>>>>> report as only related to fuzzed files.
>>>> We are re-hashing old arguments here. I'm not really interested in that.
>>>> My review comment is and remains: please remove the log msg. Otherwise,
>>> the
>>>> patch is perfectly fine.
>>> Thank you for your review comment.
>>> please awnser my question, if this is just a suggestion or a
>>> veto, so we can move forward. Its not clear from your wording to me
>>> if you belive you have authority over other maintainers or not.
>> I'm sorry, what? Authority? Are you kidding me? Amend the patch, stop being
>> difficult. This whole discussion is ridiculous. I thought you were on a
>> deadline for a remote root code execution exploit or something?
> The patch should be commited theres no question about this.
> Why should i amend it and remove the error message which help me to
> maintain the code ?
> Do you realize how ridiculous your request is ?
> This is code i wrote, code i maintain, you dont work on this code
> or have anything to do with it. And these error messages help me
> maintain the code.
> I think you should relax a bit and jump over your shadow and let me
> maintain my code instead of threads like this.
> ill remove the messages so this gets resolved but its harder to maintain
> this way so this means fewer usefull contributions from me and lower
> code quality.
> I dont think thats the ideal outcome ...
> Thanks

Use ff_dlog() for the log message. It'll still be enabled on debug
builds but not on release builds. Ronald said he's ok with it for this
case on IRC.

Unless this was suggested before and the idea discarded/rejected for
some reason...

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list