[FFmpeg-devel] libavcodec/als: remove check for predictor order of a block
omerjerk at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 21:02:04 EET 2017
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2017-11-12 20:30 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerjerk at gmail.com>:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2017-11-12 20:05 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerjerk at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> The attached patch fixes the address sanitizer issue.
>>>>> Breaks compilation here, how did you test?
>>>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c: In function ‘decode_var_block_data’:
>>>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c:938:7: error: expected ‘}’ before ‘else’
>>>> Sorry for the faulty patch. Here is the fixed one.
>>> The commit message of your patch is:
>>> libavcodec/als: fix address sanitization error in decoder
>>> Is there an error in current FFmpeg git head that asan
>>> shows? If not, the commit message makes no sense.
>>> I believe you should send two patches that are meant
>>> to be committed together, one of them fixing ticket #6297.
>> This is the complete patchset.
> I need some days to find time to test this, earliest during the weekend I fear...
> What happens for
> block_length < residual_index < opt_order?
I didn't really understand this case. What's residual_index? Can you
point to the source exactly?
As far as the case where opt_order is more than block_length, my
second patch handles that case only. The file which Michael sent was
having asan issues because of the case when block_length < opt_order.
> Another way of asking would be, where is the second loop from specs page 30 for that case?
> (ISO/IEC 14496)
The second loop is just converting parcor to lpc coefficients which is
done here - https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/libavcodec/alsdec.c#L935
> I think what puzzles CE is, that the problematic if() from the other patches is still untouched by your patch. So how could this be a valid solution even if your patch would actually improve the prediction part...
> And I wonder the same ;)
As said, it is valid to have opt_order greater than block_length.
However, the decoder loop needs to be checked because we won't predict
values more than the length of the block i.e., block_length. We use
last K (prediction order, opt_order) values to predict the original K
values of the current block.
> Did you run FATE with your patch applied? I assume a big difference in output at the first glance (means FATE aks the conformance files should fail...)
Yes. I did run FATE. It passes perfectly.
> Thanks for driving this forward anyway :)
I think the two patches fix the issues completely. I don't see any
harm in applying this patchset. :)
More information about the ffmpeg-devel