-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 461
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix multiple potential vulnerabilities and bugs #1168
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
…clouvain#987) Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
cmap_len = get_ushort(*(unsigned short*)(&tga[5])); | ||
cmap_len = get_tga_ushort(*(unsigned short*)(&tga[5])); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suspect this doesn't compile... Line 135 should be removed as it is effectively overrideen by line 136. Similar instances below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have fixed that by make a new pr.
Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
… function opj_get_encoding_parameters Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
… to avoid potential int overflow Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
…E-2018-14423 Signed-off-by: Young_X <[email protected]>
and fixes unaligned load Signed-off-by: Young Xiao <[email protected]>
Ping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this commit is OK.But when looking a bit the context, the cast to OPJ_INT32 and the type of the p_tx0, etc argument is suspicious. They shoud likely be OPJ_UINT32 and in the opj_pi_update_encode_poc_and_final() and opj_pi_update_encode_not_poc() functions as well
@rouault it seems commit e1740e7 was supposed to fix CVE-2018-20846, which is about out-of-bound accesses in pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl . With that commit reverted, is there a patch for that CVE? Thanks. |
no |
Fix multiple potential vulnerabilities and bugs