[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavf/mov: Do not fail hard for more mov atoms

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2019-01-14 21:07 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:46:08PM +0100, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2019-01-14 10:05 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>:
>> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:14:52PM +0100, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> Attached patch fixes ticket #7679.
>> >>
>> >> Please comment, Carl Eugen
>> >
>> >>  mov.c |   12 ++++++------
>> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >> a2759589f6ab06b09057969490ffc13291965144
>> >> 0001-lavf-mov-Do-not-fail-hard-for-more-invalid-atoms.patch
>> >> From ea6afa36d5ceb6e027176f051e7886f0648e3ac2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >> From: Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
>> >> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 23:07:06 +0100
>> >> Subject: [PATCH] lavf/mov: Do not fail hard for more invalid atoms.
>> >>
>> >> This is what several other players do and what FFmpeg already does for
>> >> the
>> >> sidx atom.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes ticket #7679.
>> >> ---
>> >>  libavformat/mov.c |   12 ++++++------
>> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > If a atom is ignored/discarded it should not have changed state of
>> > other
>> > things. This patch would break out after some fields are updated
>>
>> Thank you, new patch attached.
>>
>> Please review, Carl Eugen
>
>>  mov.c |   18 +++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> 1365cf6b728c8e296042420e67d58d4121b7119b
>> 0001-lavf-mov-Do-not-fail-hard-for-more-invalid-atoms.patch
>> From 4206aa40f9a3de7081c340a1da206132ed365272 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:44:01 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] lavf/mov: Do not fail hard for more invalid atoms.
>>
>> This is what several other players do and what FFmpeg already does for the
>> sidx atom.
>>
>> Fixes ticket #7679.
>> ---
>>  libavformat/mov.c |   18 +++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> should be ok

Patch applied.

Thank you, Carl Eugen