GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 733306
mpeg4parse assertion fails
Last modified: 2014-12-18 23:39:10 UTC
Yesterday I updated to latest master changes (1 month since I didn't). I have an RTSP server based on gst-rtsp-server. From time to time I get the folllowing assertion: CRITICAL **: gst_byte_reader_masked_scan_uint32: assertion '(guint64) offset + size <= reader->size - reader->byte' failed The server keeps working an streaming. The pipeline is something like: shmsrc ! x264enc ! rtph264pay I'll try to reproduce this with gst-rtsp-server test-launch. This is the backtrace: (gdb) bt
+ Trace 233833
No code from gstmpeg4parser.c or gstx264enc.c has changed for a while. Well, just trivial changes it seems. I updated x264 library recently, so may be that's causing a problem.
I'm a bit confused about where mpeg4videoparse enters the picture here (rather than h264parse).
(In reply to comment #2) > I'm a bit confused about where mpeg4videoparse enters the picture here (rather > than h264parse). Good point. I have no idea. I'm not adding a parser manually. I'll see if I can find anything with GST_DEBUG. Any suggestions to what I should look at?
Yes, mpeg4videoparse is what's being created: INFO GST_ELEMENT_FACTORY gstelementfactory.c:364:gst_element_factory_create: creating element "mpeg4videoparse" Sorry, I forgot to mention my pipeline has a decodebin.
And also forgot to mention that the input video (from the shmsrc) has been encoded by avenc_mpeg4. That's where the error comes from. Sorry for the confusion, I haven't used that video source for a while and didn't pay enough attention to it. In any case, I guess the bug is still valid.
Do you have a testcase to reproduce this problem?
(In reply to comment #6) > Do you have a testcase to reproduce this problem? No, not yet. I tried with test-launch without any luck :-(. The setup where I could reproduce the error is not something I usually use. It was a sporadic error and every thing kept going. Not sure when I'll have more time to look into it. May be set this as NEEDINFO?
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for. Thanks!