On 5/12/2018 8:07 PM, Mark Thompson wrote:
> On 11/05/18 16:38, James Almer wrote:
>> On 5/11/2018 7:10 AM, Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> On 11/05/18 06:11, Jun Zhao wrote:
>>>> when the NALU data with zero, just give a warning.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes ticket #7200
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Zhao <mypopy...@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c | 6 +++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> index ab33cdb..08b060c 100644
>>>> --- a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> @@ -521,7 +521,11 @@ static int
>>>> cbs_h2645_fragment_add_nals(CodedBitstreamContext *ctx,
>>>> // Remove trailing zeroes.
>>>> while (size > 0 && nal->data[size - 1] == 0)
>>>> --size;
>>>> - av_assert0(size > 0);
>>>> + if (!size) {
>>>> + av_log(ctx->log_ctx, AV_LOG_WARNING, "No slice data - that
>>>> was just the header. "
>>>> + "Probably invalid unaligned padding on non-final NAL
>>>> unit.\n");
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> data = av_malloc(size + AV_INPUT_BUFFER_PADDING_SIZE);
>>>> if (!data)
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do we actually want the result to be here?
>>>
>>> On IRC, James suggested:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h2645_parse.c b/libavcodec/h2645_parse.c
>>>> index dbf2435677..d436d65f48 100644
>>>> --- a/libavcodec/h2645_parse.c
>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h2645_parse.c
>>>> @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ int ff_h2645_packet_split(H2645Packet *pkt, const
>>>> uint8_t *buf, int length,
>>>> ret = hevc_parse_nal_header(nal, logctx);
>>>> else
>>>> ret = h264_parse_nal_header(nal, logctx);
>>>> - if (ret <= 0 || nal->size <= 0) {
>>>> + if (ret <= 0 || nal->size <= 0 || nal->size_bits <= 0) {
>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>> av_log(logctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Invalid NAL unit %d,
>>>> skipping.\n",
>>>> nal->type);
>>>
>>> which removes it before it gets to the CBS code.
>>>
>>> Another thing we could do is:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> index ab33cdb69b..46cd887cdd 100644
>>>> --- a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c
>>>> @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static int
>>>> cbs_h2645_fragment_add_nals(CodedBitstreamContext *ctx,
>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>
>>>> // Remove trailing zeroes.
>>>> - while (size > 0 && nal->data[size - 1] == 0)
>>>> + while (size > 1 && nal->data[size - 1] == 0)
>>>> --size;
>>>> av_assert0(size > 0);
>>>>
>>>
>>> which would make it parse as an empty NAL unit of type 0 (unspecified), and
>>> therefore pass through into the output stream in the h264_metadata case.
>>>
>>> So, what do you think? Do you know what made your sample stream?
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>
>> Taking into account the analysis by mkver in the trac ticket, where he
>> found out the bitstream contains "00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01" with the
>> second start code being a real valid NAL, i think this should definitely
>> be fixed in h2645_parse. No reason to propagate a non existent NAL like
>> this.
>> We should either use my fix, or another that actually prevents nal->size
>> from inexplicably becoming 1 in this scenario.
>
> I was applying the standard precisely, which I think ends up with the
> interpretation:
>
> 00 00 00 01 09 f0 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 41 e2 02 56
> | | | | | | | | | |
> ^^ zero_byte ^^^^^^^^ start code
> ^^^^^^^^ start code ^^ NAL unit header
> ^^ NAL unit header ^^^^^^^^ start code
> ^^ NAL unit content (AUD) ^^ NAL unit header
> ^^ trailing zeroes ^^^... NAL unit content (slice)
>
> The middle NAL unit has type 0 (unspecified application use) and no content.
> I admit that's probably not what was intended here, but currently we do
> preserve unspecified NAL units and it's not clear that type 0 should
> necessarily be treated differently to 24-31.
>
> This would be a pretty absurd use, though, so I don't think it really
> matters. Given that, I'm fine with any of the possible answers above.
I have the feeling this file is meant to have 00 00 00 01 as start code
for all NALUs, and not 00 00 01 plus a trailing/leading zero byte, so
technically this would be a rogue four byte start code before a valid
NALU, perhaps because whatever muxed this file appends start codes to
what it expects to be NALUs stripped of them, and the slice already had one.
In any case, having no content (nal->size_bits being zero, and therefore
nal->gb being an empty context) is reason enough to drop it, IMO.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> (Another data point: the reference decoder segfaults when given the sample
> stream.)
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
