Skip to content
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

Fixed handling of empty buffer in VP8 #93

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mondain
Copy link
Contributor

@mondain mondain commented Mar 2, 2016

No description provided.

@jitsi-jenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@bgrozev
Copy link
Member

bgrozev commented Apr 4, 2016

I don't think we should merge this in its current state. If the copy fails we should return failure and not just set# frameLength (which should follow the total size of #data). We should also ensure that the parameters to arraycopy are correct rather than handling an exception (which is simple enough in this case).

@Andy--S
Copy link

Andy--S commented Apr 5, 2016

there are two ways to fix this.
Method one in fmj:

FMJ BasicFilterModule could set the buffer to discard when the length is ZERO before passing it to the next 'process' method, or not pass it at all to the next process module which could be this one in question.

Method two attempted here in jitsi,
VP8 depacketizor could verify both that the buffer is not set 'discard' and that the buffer actually has 'length' before trying to do anything.

Ignoring the copy/sanity checks we provided, the issue is a length of ZERO for the incoming buffer. Since the VP8 method to probe the buffer does nothing in that case, the copy methods then throw an error and trigger the filter module shut down sequence.

@Andy--S
Copy link

Andy--S commented Apr 5, 2016

So, basically, we should remove the try/catch handler since our issue is handled by the earlier length check? That makes sense.

@zbettenbuk
Copy link
Member

I've also ran into this issue and did a quick fix but eagerly waiting for this solution

@mondain
Copy link
Contributor Author

mondain commented Apr 6, 2016

@bgrozev could you make the changes you are suggesting? You've kinda lost me and I'm not sure I follow. We need this to work and apparently we're not alone.

@ibauersachs
Copy link
Member

@bgrozev Can you please give this a look - or close the PR if you're not able to merge it.

@bgrozev
Copy link
Member

bgrozev commented Jul 12, 2016

@ibauersachs, the current code has problems, and I don't want to merge it in this state. I don't have the resources to fix it and test it myself, but I would rather leave it open because it is a valid problem.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants