| Message ID | 20211227055711.63060-1-ffmpeg@gyani.pro |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [FFmpeg-devel] avformat/mov: correct 0 valued entries in stts | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| andriy/make_x86 | success | Make finished |
| andriy/make_fate_x86 | success | Make fate finished |
| andriy/make_ppc | success | Make finished |
| andriy/make_fate_ppc | fail | Make fate failed |
> On Dec 27, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro> wrote: > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > the last entry. > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > --- > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > sample_count, sample_duration); > > + if (!sample_count) { > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); No, zero is a valid value, for example, fragmented mp4. > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > + } > + > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > + } > + > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > } > -- > 2.33.0 > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
> On Dec 27, 2021, at 2:38 PM, zhilizhao(赵志立) <quinkblack@foxmail.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 27, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro> wrote: >> >> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >> the last entry. >> >> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >> --- >> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >> sample_count, sample_duration); >> >> + if (!sample_count) { >> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > No, zero is a valid value, for example, fragmented mp4. Ok, it’s sample_count, not entry_count. > >> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >> + } >> + >> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >> + } >> + >> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >> } >> -- >> 2.33.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email >> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > the last entry. > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > --- > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > sample_count, sample_duration); > > + if (!sample_count) { > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > + } > + > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > + } > + > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > total_sample_count+=sample_count; This does not produce the same output tickets/2096/m.f4v videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg Taking a step back, the problem started with 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 which broke a real world file which was outside the specification you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which where outside the specification and now this fix on top which changes real world files which are outside the specification I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a bugfix or a bug ? The change refers to the specification but the specification will not help me when it to comes to how to handle all the wierd and wonderful files the exist out there ... thx PS: also if you want to write fate tests for some of the odd files we find in the process here, this may be a good idea and might simplify future work [...]
On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >> the last entry. >> >> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >> --- >> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >> sample_count, sample_duration); >> >> + if (!sample_count) { >> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >> + } >> + >> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >> + } >> + >> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >> total_sample_count+=sample_count; > This does not produce the same output > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg Where do I find these files? > Taking a step back, the problem started with > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an unusual way. Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other demuxers do so till today. Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 broke that hack. The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > where outside the specification > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > are outside the specification > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > bugfix or a bug ? Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's expected, intended and trivial. It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, I'll see if I can restore it. Regards, Gyan
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > > > the last entry. > > > > > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > > > --- > > > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > > > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > > > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > > > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > > > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > > > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > > > sample_count, sample_duration); > > > + if (!sample_count) { > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > > > + } > > > + > > > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > > > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > > This does not produce the same output > > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg > > Where do I find these files? https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v i failed to find the 3rd online > > > Taking a step back, the problem started with > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification > > Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an > unusual way. > Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other > demuxers do so till today. > Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 > broke that hack. > The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > > > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > > where outside the specification > > > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > > are outside the specification > > > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > > bugfix or a bug ? > > Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's > expected, intended and trivial. > It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. > > If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, > I'll see if I can restore it. First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? What is the idea behind the change ? please correct me if iam wrong but Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 We are before a release and id like to fix the regression ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression without breaking something else ? PS: if you need random testfiles for testing arbitrary changes samples.ffmpeg.org should have alot and is also accessible with rsync so you dont need to wait and hope someone will spot an issue. thanks [...]
On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> >> On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >>>> the last entry. >>>> >>>> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >>>> --- >>>> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >>>> sample_count, sample_duration); >>>> + if (!sample_count) { >>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >>>> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >>> This does not produce the same output >>> tickets/2096/m.f4v >>> >>> videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) >>> >>> tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>> >>> But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg >> Where do I find these files? > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v > > i failed to find the 3rd online > > >>> Taking a step back, the problem started with >>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>> which broke a real world file which was outside the specification >> Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an >> unusual way. >> Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other >> demuxers do so till today. >> Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 >> broke that hack. >> The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. >> >>> you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which >>> where outside the specification >>> >>> and now this fix on top which changes real world files which >>> are outside the specification >>> >>> I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" >>> more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. >>> So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a >>> bugfix or a bug ? >> Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's >> expected, intended and trivial. >> It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. >> >> If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, >> I'll see if I can restore it. > First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every > > If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy > But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question > as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? > Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? > What is the idea behind the change ? > please correct me if iam wrong but > > Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless > someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) > And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 > Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 > > We are before a release and id like to fix the regression > ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression > without breaking something else ? 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we can. So if you revert 203b0e3561d and do nothing else, lavf can then fail to parse some valid files. The 'regression' then is the loss to accommodate some out-of-spec files. I've now seen the two files you linked to. It turns out that they appear to use 0 delta values for a similar purpose as mp4-negative-stts-problem.mp4. And I can accommodate that use in my patches. Updated patches have been sent. I'm able to remux both CodecCopyFailing.mp4 and m.f4v. Their playback looks acceptably similar and in sync. Any individual timestamp changes don't accumulate and cause drift. Regards, Gyan
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > > > > > the last entry. > > > > > > > > > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > > > > > --- > > > > > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > > > > > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > > > > > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > > > > > sample_count, sample_duration); > > > > > + if (!sample_count) { > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > > > > > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > > > > This does not produce the same output > > > > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > > > > > > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg > > > Where do I find these files? > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v > > > > i failed to find the 3rd online > > > > > > > > Taking a step back, the problem started with > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification > > > Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an > > > unusual way. > > > Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other > > > demuxers do so till today. > > > Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 > > > broke that hack. > > > The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > > > > > > > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > > > > where outside the specification > > > > > > > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > > > > are outside the specification > > > > > > > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > > > > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > > > > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > > > > bugfix or a bug ? > > > Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's > > > expected, intended and trivial. > > > It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. > > > > > > If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, > > > I'll see if I can restore it. > > First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every > > > > If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy > > But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question > > as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? > > Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? > > What is the idea behind the change ? > > please correct me if iam wrong but > > > > Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless > > someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) > > And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 > > Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 > > > > We are before a release and id like to fix the regression > > ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression > > without breaking something else ? > > 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files > 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we > can. Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work thx [...]
On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> >> On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>> On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >>>>>> the last entry. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >>>>>> --- >>>>>> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>>> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >>>>>> sample_count, sample_duration); >>>>>> + if (!sample_count) { >>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >>>>>> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >>>>> This does not produce the same output >>>>> tickets/2096/m.f4v >>>>> >>>>> videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) >>>>> >>>>> tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>> >>>>> But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg >>>> Where do I find these files? >>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v >>> >>> i failed to find the 3rd online >>> >>> >>>>> Taking a step back, the problem started with >>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>> which broke a real world file which was outside the specification >>>> Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an >>>> unusual way. >>>> Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other >>>> demuxers do so till today. >>>> Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 >>>> broke that hack. >>>> The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. >>>> >>>>> you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which >>>>> where outside the specification >>>>> >>>>> and now this fix on top which changes real world files which >>>>> are outside the specification >>>>> >>>>> I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" >>>>> more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. >>>>> So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a >>>>> bugfix or a bug ? >>>> Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's >>>> expected, intended and trivial. >>>> It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. >>>> >>>> If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, >>>> I'll see if I can restore it. >>> First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every >>> >>> If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy >>> But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question >>> as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? >>> Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? >>> What is the idea behind the change ? >>> please correct me if iam wrong but >>> >>> Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless >>> someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) >>> And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 >>> Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 >>> >>> We are before a release and id like to fix the regression >>> ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting >>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>> can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression >>> without breaking something else ? >> 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files >> 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we >> can. > Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well > The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards > fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. > if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then > it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 > and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file > is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of > supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown > out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they are it suggests a spec widely ignored. In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to first go to ask or complain. FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things tell me that funky files whose demuxing has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set of patches restore the special handling needed for the set of files you've highlighted. Regards, Gyan
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > > > > > > > the last entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > > > > > > > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > > > > > > > sample_count, sample_duration); > > > > > > > + if (!sample_count) { > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > > > > > > > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > > > > > > This does not produce the same output > > > > > > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > > > > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg > > > > > Where do I find these files? > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > i failed to find the 3rd online > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking a step back, the problem started with > > > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > > > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification > > > > > Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an > > > > > unusual way. > > > > > Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other > > > > > demuxers do so till today. > > > > > Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 > > > > > broke that hack. > > > > > The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > > > > > > > > > > > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > > > > > > where outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > > > > > > are outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > > > > > > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > > > > > > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > > > > > > bugfix or a bug ? > > > > > Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's > > > > > expected, intended and trivial. > > > > > It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. > > > > > > > > > > If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, > > > > > I'll see if I can restore it. > > > > First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every > > > > > > > > If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy > > > > But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question > > > > as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? > > > > Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? > > > > What is the idea behind the change ? > > > > please correct me if iam wrong but > > > > > > > > Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless > > > > someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) > > > > And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 > > > > Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 > > > > > > > > We are before a release and id like to fix the regression > > > > ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression > > > > without breaking something else ? > > > 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files > > > 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we > > > can. > > Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well > > The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards > > fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. > > if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then > > it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 > > and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file > > is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of > > supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown > > out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work > > It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they > are it suggests a spec widely ignored. > > In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken > MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. > I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to > first go to ask or complain. > FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things > tell me that funky files whose demuxing > has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to test ? That should be a broader set than fate it can be downloaded with rsync if you have enough space A patch which changes some files and the amount affected is unknown vs. A patch which changes some files and was tested against all mov/mp4 files from samples and changed 5 where the change improved av-sync These 2 hypothetical commit messages give a totally different feeling to a reviewer thx [...]
On 2021-12-29 11:38 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> >> On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>> On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >>>>>>>> the last entry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>>>>> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >>>>>>>> sample_count, sample_duration); >>>>>>>> + if (!sample_count) { >>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >>>>>>>> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >>>>>>> This does not produce the same output >>>>>>> tickets/2096/m.f4v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg >>>>>> Where do I find these files? >>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v >>>>> >>>>> i failed to find the 3rd online >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Taking a step back, the problem started with >>>>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>>>> which broke a real world file which was outside the specification >>>>>> Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an >>>>>> unusual way. >>>>>> Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other >>>>>> demuxers do so till today. >>>>>> Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 >>>>>> broke that hack. >>>>>> The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. >>>>>> >>>>>>> you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which >>>>>>> where outside the specification >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and now this fix on top which changes real world files which >>>>>>> are outside the specification >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" >>>>>>> more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. >>>>>>> So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a >>>>>>> bugfix or a bug ? >>>>>> Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's >>>>>> expected, intended and trivial. >>>>>> It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, >>>>>> I'll see if I can restore it. >>>>> First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every >>>>> >>>>> If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy >>>>> But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question >>>>> as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? >>>>> Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? >>>>> What is the idea behind the change ? >>>>> please correct me if iam wrong but >>>>> >>>>> Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless >>>>> someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) >>>>> And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 >>>>> Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 >>>>> >>>>> We are before a release and id like to fix the regression >>>>> ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting >>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>> can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression >>>>> without breaking something else ? >>>> 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files >>>> 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we >>>> can. >>> Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well >>> The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards >>> fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. >>> if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then >>> it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 >>> and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file >>> is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of >>> supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown >>> out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work >> It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they >> are it suggests a spec widely ignored. >> >> In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken >> MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. >> I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to >> first go to ask or complain. >> FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things >> tell me that funky files whose demuxing >> has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set > have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to > test ? That should be a broader set than fate If some behaviour change is to be checked for, it should be in FATE. That's the point of a regression test suite. I see dozens, if not hundreds, of files in /mov and /ffmpeg-bugs Is there anything specifc you have in mind? Regards, Gyan
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:07:21AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2021-12-29 11:38 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > > > > > > > > > the last entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > > > > > > > > > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > > > > > > > > > sample_count, sample_duration); > > > > > > > > > + if (!sample_count) { > > > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > > > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > > > > > > > > > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > > > > > > > > This does not produce the same output > > > > > > > > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg > > > > > > > Where do I find these files? > > > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > > > > > i failed to find the 3rd online > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking a step back, the problem started with > > > > > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > > > > > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification > > > > > > > Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an > > > > > > > unusual way. > > > > > > > Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other > > > > > > > demuxers do so till today. > > > > > > > Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 > > > > > > > broke that hack. > > > > > > > The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > > > > > > > > where outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > > > > > > > > are outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > > > > > > > > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > > > > > > > > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > > > > > > > > bugfix or a bug ? > > > > > > > Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's > > > > > > > expected, intended and trivial. > > > > > > > It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, > > > > > > > I'll see if I can restore it. > > > > > > First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every > > > > > > > > > > > > If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy > > > > > > But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question > > > > > > as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? > > > > > > Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? > > > > > > What is the idea behind the change ? > > > > > > please correct me if iam wrong but > > > > > > > > > > > > Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless > > > > > > someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) > > > > > > And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 > > > > > > Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > We are before a release and id like to fix the regression > > > > > > ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting > > > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > > > can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression > > > > > > without breaking something else ? > > > > > 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files > > > > > 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we > > > > > can. > > > > Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well > > > > The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards > > > > fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. > > > > if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then > > > > it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 > > > > and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file > > > > is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of > > > > supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown > > > > out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work > > > It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they > > > are it suggests a spec widely ignored. > > > > > > In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken > > > MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. > > > I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to > > > first go to ask or complain. > > > FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things > > > tell me that funky files whose demuxing > > > has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set > > have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to > > test ? That should be a broader set than fate > > If some behaviour change is to be checked for, it should be in FATE. That's > the point of a regression test suite. i do agree, and i very much welcome everyone adding tests to fate to improve its coverage. > > I see dozens, if not hundreds, of files in /mov and /ffmpeg-bugs There should be around a thousand files that are parseable by the mov demuxer in there, the whole archive is something between 100-200gb (not just such files) > Is there anything specifc you have in mind? yes if a patch adds support for unsigned STTS, NO file thats not identified as unsigned STTS should change. If a patch changes files, then the explanation cannot be "its convenient for the implementation" without good evidence that this convenience doesnt worsen the functionality. That requires probably extensive testing, finding files that are handled differently should be easy to do automatically. when i did some tests, i kept finding issues in your patches, this is very inefficient. You have to post the patch i have to apply it and test then reply with an explanation of the failure. We arent online at the same time / working at the same time so theres a delay and this is surely inconvenient for both of us as we have to start and stop working on this. It should be much easier if you test your demuxer changes yourself and only post them once they do not worsen some file Or of course if your demuxer changes do not change the handling of existing unrelated files then you wouldnt have to test all these unrelated files also being before a release is another factor where a quicker turnaround time for you on found bugs and thus testing yourself would be better thx [...]
On 2021-12-30 07:46 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:07:21AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> >> On 2021-12-29 11:38 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>> On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >>>>>>>>>> the last entry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>>>>>>> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >>>>>>>>>> sample_count, sample_duration); >>>>>>>>>> + if (!sample_count) { >>>>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >>>>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >>>>>>>>>> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >>>>>>>>> This does not produce the same output >>>>>>>>> tickets/2096/m.f4v >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg >>>>>>>> Where do I find these files? >>>>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i failed to find the 3rd online >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Taking a step back, the problem started with >>>>>>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>>>>>> which broke a real world file which was outside the specification >>>>>>>> Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an >>>>>>>> unusual way. >>>>>>>> Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other >>>>>>>> demuxers do so till today. >>>>>>>> Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 >>>>>>>> broke that hack. >>>>>>>> The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which >>>>>>>>> where outside the specification >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and now this fix on top which changes real world files which >>>>>>>>> are outside the specification >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" >>>>>>>>> more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. >>>>>>>>> So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a >>>>>>>>> bugfix or a bug ? >>>>>>>> Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's >>>>>>>> expected, intended and trivial. >>>>>>>> It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, >>>>>>>> I'll see if I can restore it. >>>>>>> First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy >>>>>>> But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question >>>>>>> as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? >>>>>>> Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? >>>>>>> What is the idea behind the change ? >>>>>>> please correct me if iam wrong but >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless >>>>>>> someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) >>>>>>> And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 >>>>>>> Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are before a release and id like to fix the regression >>>>>>> ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting >>>>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>>>> can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression >>>>>>> without breaking something else ? >>>>>> 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files >>>>>> 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we >>>>>> can. >>>>> Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well >>>>> The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards >>>>> fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. >>>>> if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then >>>>> it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 >>>>> and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file >>>>> is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of >>>>> supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown >>>>> out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work >>>> It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they >>>> are it suggests a spec widely ignored. >>>> >>>> In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken >>>> MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. >>>> I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to >>>> first go to ask or complain. >>>> FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things >>>> tell me that funky files whose demuxing >>>> has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set >>> have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to >>> test ? That should be a broader set than fate >> If some behaviour change is to be checked for, it should be in FATE. That's >> the point of a regression test suite. > i do agree, and i very much welcome everyone adding tests to fate to > improve its coverage. > > >> I see dozens, if not hundreds, of files in /mov and /ffmpeg-bugs > There should be around a thousand files that are parseable by the mov demuxer > in there, the whole archive is something between 100-200gb (not just such files) > > >> Is there anything specifc you have in mind? > yes > if a patch adds support for unsigned STTS, NO file thats not identified > as unsigned STTS should change. This is what my original patch for max_stts_delta did. It used a default value of INT_MAX so all deltas identified as negative pre-option would still be treated as negative post-option. But you asked for a different default value. > If a patch changes files, then the explanation cannot be > "its convenient for the implementation" without good evidence that this > convenience doesnt worsen the functionality. > That requires probably extensive testing, finding files that are handled > differently should be easy to do automatically. I'll survey all mov demuxer files in the sample suite over the weekend. But note the 0-value adjustment patch is a separate and detachable issue from max_stts_delta. You can test the latest version of max_stts_delta patch with the current default value or the original default of INT_MAX and it should not break demux or sync relative to 203b0e3561~ Regards, Gyan
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:39:05PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2021-12-30 07:46 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:07:21AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-12-29 11:38 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for > > > > > > > > > > > the last entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > > > index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/libavformat/mov.c > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) > > > > > > > > > > > av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", > > > > > > > > > > > sample_count, sample_duration); > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!sample_count) { > > > > > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { > > > > > > > > > > > + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", > > > > > > > > > > > + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); > > > > > > > > > > > + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; > > > > > > > > > > > total_sample_count+=sample_count; > > > > > > > > > > This does not produce the same output > > > > > > > > > > tickets/2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg > > > > > > > > > Where do I find these files? > > > > > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 > > > > > > > > https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i failed to find the 3rd online > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking a step back, the problem started with > > > > > > > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > > > > > > > which broke a real world file which was outside the specification > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an > > > > > > > > > unusual way. > > > > > > > > > Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other > > > > > > > > > demuxers do so till today. > > > > > > > > > Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 > > > > > > > > > broke that hack. > > > > > > > > > The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which > > > > > > > > > > where outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and now this fix on top which changes real world files which > > > > > > > > > > are outside the specification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" > > > > > > > > > > more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. > > > > > > > > > > So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a > > > > > > > > > > bugfix or a bug ? > > > > > > > > > Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's > > > > > > > > > expected, intended and trivial. > > > > > > > > > It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can restore it. > > > > > > > > First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy > > > > > > > > But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question > > > > > > > > as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? > > > > > > > > Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? > > > > > > > > What is the idea behind the change ? > > > > > > > > please correct me if iam wrong but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless > > > > > > > > someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) > > > > > > > > And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 > > > > > > > > Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are before a release and id like to fix the regression > > > > > > > > ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting > > > > > > > > 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 > > > > > > > > can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression > > > > > > > > without breaking something else ? > > > > > > > 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files > > > > > > > 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we > > > > > > > can. > > > > > > Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well > > > > > > The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards > > > > > > fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. > > > > > > if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then > > > > > > it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 > > > > > > and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file > > > > > > is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of > > > > > > supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown > > > > > > out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work > > > > > It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they > > > > > are it suggests a spec widely ignored. > > > > > > > > > > In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken > > > > > MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. > > > > > I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to > > > > > first go to ask or complain. > > > > > FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things > > > > > tell me that funky files whose demuxing > > > > > has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set > > > > have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to > > > > test ? That should be a broader set than fate > > > If some behaviour change is to be checked for, it should be in FATE. That's > > > the point of a regression test suite. > > i do agree, and i very much welcome everyone adding tests to fate to > > improve its coverage. > > > > > > > I see dozens, if not hundreds, of files in /mov and /ffmpeg-bugs > > There should be around a thousand files that are parseable by the mov demuxer > > in there, the whole archive is something between 100-200gb (not just such files) > > > > > > > Is there anything specifc you have in mind? > > yes > > if a patch adds support for unsigned STTS, NO file thats not identified > > as unsigned STTS should change. > This is what my original patch for max_stts_delta did. It used a default > value of INT_MAX so all deltas identified as negative pre-option > would still be treated as negative post-option. But you asked for a > different default value. > > > > If a patch changes files, then the explanation cannot be > > "its convenient for the implementation" without good evidence that this > > convenience doesnt worsen the functionality. > > That requires probably extensive testing, finding files that are handled > > differently should be easy to do automatically. > > I'll survey all mov demuxer files in the sample suite over the weekend. But > note the 0-value adjustment patch is a separate and detachable issue from > max_stts_delta. > You can test the latest version of max_stts_delta patch with the current > default value or the original default of INT_MAX and it should not break > demux or sync relative to 203b0e3561~ v4 seems to work, i have just now tested it thanks [...]
On 2021-12-30 11:25 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:39:05PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> >> On 2021-12-30 07:46 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:07:21AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>> On 2021-12-29 11:38 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:39:34PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-29 05:58 pm, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:26:42PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-28 05:18 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 01:33:54AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-28 12:38 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:27:10AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> As per ISO 14496-12, sample duration of 0 is invalid except for >>>>>>>>>>>> the last entry. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, also catch 0 value for sample count. >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> libavformat/mov.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mov.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) >>>>>>>>>>>> av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", >>>>>>>>>>>> sample_count, sample_duration); >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!sample_count) { >>>>>>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; >>>>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { >>>>>>>>>>>> + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", >>>>>>>>>>>> + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); >>>>>>>>>>>> + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; >>>>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; >>>>>>>>>>>> total_sample_count+=sample_count; >>>>>>>>>>> This does not produce the same output >>>>>>>>>>> tickets/2096/m.f4v >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> videos/stretch.mov (2344 matches for "invalid" after this patch) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tickets/976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But there are many more, some maybe even generated by FFmpeg >>>>>>>>>> Where do I find these files? >>>>>>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket976/CodecCopyFailing.mp4 >>>>>>>>> https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-bugs/trac/ticket2096/m.f4v >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i failed to find the 3rd online >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Taking a step back, the problem started with >>>>>>>>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>>>>>>>> which broke a real world file which was outside the specification >>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify, it did not break that file. That file uses stts in an >>>>>>>>>> unusual way. >>>>>>>>>> Before 2015, lavf exported packets with the same desync as the other >>>>>>>>>> demuxers do so till today. >>>>>>>>>> Andreas' patch added a hack to make it play in sync. My patch 203b0e356 >>>>>>>>>> broke that hack. >>>>>>>>>> The patch for max_stts_delta is a way to restore it back. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> you then suggested a fix which crashed with some fuzzed files which >>>>>>>>>>> where outside the specification >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and now this fix on top which changes real world files which >>>>>>>>>>> are outside the specification >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think, maybe you should consider the "outside the specification" >>>>>>>>>>> more. The code above directly and intentionally changes values. >>>>>>>>>>> So as a reviewer i have to ask the obvious, is that change a >>>>>>>>>>> bugfix or a bug ? >>>>>>>>>> Not surprising that the output of out-of-spec files is different - that's >>>>>>>>>> expected, intended and trivial. >>>>>>>>>> It would be a bug if in-spec files were treated differently. FATE passes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If there's a specific / "correct" playback for these files like sync issues, >>>>>>>>>> I'll see if I can restore it. >>>>>>>>> First we need to find cases that broke. I certainly will not find every >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If a patch is writen with the goal "dont break any file" it would be easy >>>>>>>>> But you said that changes are "expected, intended" so then my question >>>>>>>>> as reviewer would be what about these expected changes ? >>>>>>>>> Did it change any real files output? did it fix a bug? >>>>>>>>> What is the idea behind the change ? >>>>>>>>> please correct me if iam wrong but >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here it seems you dont care what happens with changed files unless >>>>>>>>> someone else finds such a file and reports it. (if its not in spec) >>>>>>>>> And the idea seems that 0 is inconvenient so you change it to 1 >>>>>>>>> Its not that 0 could fundamentally not be intended to mean 0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are before a release and id like to fix the regression >>>>>>>>> ATM objectively the only option i have is reverting >>>>>>>>> 203b0e3561dea1ec459be226d805abe73e7535e5 >>>>>>>>> can you provide another option ? something that fixes the regression >>>>>>>>> without breaking something else ? >>>>>>>> 1) The first priority ought to be to not mishandle compliant files >>>>>>>> 2) Subject to 1, we should accommodate for out-of-spec files as much as we >>>>>>>> can. >>>>>>> Sounds good but that alone doesnt work well >>>>>>> The codebase is iteratively written, the demuxers move in steps towards >>>>>>> fewer bugs, more wide file support, better maintainability. >>>>>>> if you start with a demuxer which supports 500 files and then >>>>>>> it supports 550 then 700 then 800 and so on eventually it reaches 999 >>>>>>> and now someone finds a spec compliance bug and fixes it so 1 more file >>>>>>> is supported that developer has to try to not break past efforts of >>>>>>> supporting other files. Because otherwise alot of past work is thrown >>>>>>> out and thats just bad. Bad for users, bad for the people who did that work >>>>>> It depends if all files beyond the first 500 are out-of-spec files. If they >>>>>> are it suggests a spec widely ignored. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this specific case however, I haven't seen any complaints about broken >>>>>> MP4 demuxing outside of your samples. >>>>>> I am on Stack Overflow and other popular support forums where users tend to >>>>>> first go to ask or complain. >>>>>> FATE which is meant to catch undesirable behaviour passes. Both those things >>>>>> tell me that funky files whose demuxing >>>>>> has changed constitute a very tiny set of files at most. And my latest set >>>>> have you considered using https://samples.ffmpeg.org/ as a set of files to >>>>> test ? That should be a broader set than fate >>>> If some behaviour change is to be checked for, it should be in FATE. That's >>>> the point of a regression test suite. >>> i do agree, and i very much welcome everyone adding tests to fate to >>> improve its coverage. >>> >>> >>>> I see dozens, if not hundreds, of files in /mov and /ffmpeg-bugs >>> There should be around a thousand files that are parseable by the mov demuxer >>> in there, the whole archive is something between 100-200gb (not just such files) >>> >>> >>>> Is there anything specifc you have in mind? >>> yes >>> if a patch adds support for unsigned STTS, NO file thats not identified >>> as unsigned STTS should change. >> This is what my original patch for max_stts_delta did. It used a default >> value of INT_MAX so all deltas identified as negative pre-option >> would still be treated as negative post-option. But you asked for a >> different default value. >> >> >>> If a patch changes files, then the explanation cannot be >>> "its convenient for the implementation" without good evidence that this >>> convenience doesnt worsen the functionality. >>> That requires probably extensive testing, finding files that are handled >>> differently should be easy to do automatically. >> I'll survey all mov demuxer files in the sample suite over the weekend. But >> note the 0-value adjustment patch is a separate and detachable issue from >> max_stts_delta. >> You can test the latest version of max_stts_delta patch with the current >> default value or the original default of INT_MAX and it should not break >> demux or sync relative to 203b0e3561~ > v4 seems to work, i have just now tested it > thanks So, I'll push max_stts_delta soon and test the 0 value patch on the weekend. Regards, Gyan
diff --git a/libavformat/mov.c b/libavformat/mov.c index 2aed6e80ef..fb7406cdd6 100644 --- a/libavformat/mov.c +++ b/libavformat/mov.c @@ -2968,6 +2968,18 @@ static int mov_read_stts(MOVContext *c, AVIOContext *pb, MOVAtom atom) av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_TRACE, "sample_count=%d, sample_duration=%d\n", sample_count, sample_duration); + if (!sample_count) { + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample count of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); + sc->stts_data[i].count = sample_count = 1; + } + + if (!sample_duration && i != entries-1) { + av_log(c->fc, AV_LOG_WARNING, "invalid sample delta of 0 in stts for st %d at entry %u; changing to 1.\n", + c->fc->nb_streams-1, i); + sc->stts_data[i].duration = sample_duration = 1; + } + duration+=(int64_t)sample_duration*(uint64_t)sample_count; total_sample_count+=sample_count; }