[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] add av_enable_strict_whitelists()
michaelni at gmx.at
Sun Oct 26 02:49:38 CEST 2014
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 02:09:19AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:16:26 +0200
> Nicolas George <george at nsup.org> wrote:
> > Le quartidi 4 brumaire, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > > This fixes the issue that a not set or not forwarded whitelist
> > > would allow to bypass it.
> > I am a bit worried by the sheer amount of extra code and API this simple
> > feature requires. Maybe it is a sign that it was not the best approach to
> > begin with.
> > Also, I did not say at the time, but I believe using a string to hold a list
> > like that is quite ugly.
> > Unless I am mistaken, the core of the problem resides in the existence of
> > global variables in the library, and this is not the only instance of this
> > issue: remember people who want to free the global mutex manager, not
> > understanding that "still reachable" is not a memory leak.
> > There is an idea that I have been nursing for some time: moving all these
> > global variables to a structure, and start passing it around everywhere.
> > Most of the functions that access the global variables already have some
> > kind of context where the pointer can be stored, so it would only require
> > changing a few API entry points.
> > That may look somewhat like that:
> > AVCodecInstance *libavcodec = avcodec_library_create(OPTIONS);
> > AVFormatInstance *libavformat = avformat_library_create(libavformat, OPTIONS);
> > avformat_instance_open_input(libavformat, &ctx, filename, NULL, NULL);
> > Then the whitelist feature comes for free: use the options to disable
> > registering all the codecs, then manually register the ones needed.
> > Of course, for compatibility, a global instance need to be inited if the
> > legacy entry points are used, but it becomes much easier to test extensively
> > that modern API usage will not touch them.
> > Of course, that requires more work, and the whitelist feature will not be
> > available immediately, but in the long run I believe it would be greatly
> > beneficial.
> > What do people think of that?
> That's exactly the same idea I suggested some hours ago on IRC - so
> it's not good, I guess?
the idea is only good with a volunteer to implement it.
the funny thing is i had thought about using such context too before
i read about it today from you and nicolas.
I didnt further look into it when i thought about it as it seemed
mostly orthogonal to the whitelists.
Its a nicer place to put them in but it doesnt really change things.
Also its a moderate amount of work and looks like it would require
user apps to be updated to a new API again which isnt all that great
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
it is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make
their appearance in the world. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel