[sr-dev] do_action error

Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul andrei at iptel.org
Thu Nov 12 11:07:17 CET 2009


On Nov 12, 2009 at 07:42, Juha Heinanen <jh at tutpro.com> wrote:
> just when i mentioned in previous email that i don't currently have any
> known problems with sr_3.0, a new one hit me.
> 
> script calls next_gw(), which results in errors:
> 
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: INFO: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2062]: appending branch <sip:110415036078 at 192.98.101.1:5060>
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: : <core> [action.c:344]: BUG: do_action: bad append_branch_t 1

The parameter for the script append branch is now a str and not a
null-terminated string.
I've changed that recently (394e061f) when I've made the script
append_branch more compatible with the k version (force socket a.s.o.).

I haven't thought that someone might use do_action() w/ APPEND_BRANCH_T
 instead of directly using append_branch().

> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: <core> [action.c:1251]: run action error at: :0
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2065]: do_action failed with return value <-5>
> 
> the piece of code where the errors comes is this:
> 
> 	uri_str.s = r_uri;
> 	uri_str.len = r_uri_len;
> 	memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
> 	act.type = APPEND_BRANCH_T;
> 	act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
                      ^^^^^^^^^^ replace with STR_ST.
                      (for the record, I see you switched to
                      append_branch()).
> 	act.val[0].u.str = uri_str;
> 	act.val[1].type = NUMBER_ST;
> 	act.val[1].u.number = 0;
> 	init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
> 	LM_INFO("appending branch <%.*s>\n", uri_str.len, uri_str.s);
> 	rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
> 	if (rval != 1) {
> 	    LM_ERR("do_action failed with return value <%d>\n", rval);
> 	    return -1;
> 	}
>     }
> 
> i added the LM_INFO in order to verify validity of the uri and it looks
> ok to me.
> 
> is this some new bug or what?  i haven't seen it earlier although i have
> been running the same tests.

Yes, it's a recent change.


Andrei



More information about the sr-dev mailing list