[sr-dev] [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 12:19:17 CET 2010


Hello Aymeric,

I was forwarding some registrations to your domain and didn't get the 
deadlock.  I did get tcp_send failed many times and then used second dns 
record. I have two udp workers.

How fast did you get to lock?

I am using latest 1.5.3 here, what is your output of kamailio -V?

Thanks,
Daniel


On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla 
>>>> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have 
>>>>> more
>>>>> insights...
>>>>
>>>> Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
>>>
>>> This is branches/1.5
>>> With svn version 5949.
>> I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were related to this 
>> version.
>
> Sorry, I though I did mentioned it in my initial mail (sent on 
> kamailio mailing list) however, it waz not the case.
>
> I would have asked on ser-users if it was 3.0 ;)
>
>> On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's 1.5.3: changelog starts with:
> ===================== 2009-10-XX Kamailio v1.5.3 released 
> =====================
>
> Regards,
> Aymeric
>
>> Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we 
>> can hunt in difference places.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb 
>>> installed:
>>>
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0  0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
>>> #1  0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
>>> #2  0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3,
>>>     buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2 at mobipouce.com 
>>> SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: 
>>> <sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on>\r\nRecord-Route: 
>>> <sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on>\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 
>>> 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at 
>>> fastlock.h:182
>>> #3  0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, 
>>> len=645) at ../../forward.h:127
>>> #4  0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, 
>>> proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691
>>> #5  0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, 
>>> flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264
>>> #6  0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) 
>>> at tm.c:1002
>>> #7  0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:874
>>> #8  0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:145
>>> #9  0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at 
>>> route.c:1171
>>> #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at 
>>> route.c:1488
>>> #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at 
>>> route.c:1493
>>> #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:729
>>> #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:145
>>> #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:120
>>> #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:145
>>> #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:746
>>> #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:145
>>> #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at 
>>> action.c:120
>>> #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg (
>>>     buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2 at mobipouce.com 
>>> SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 
>>> 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: \"aymeric\" 
>>> <sip:antisip at sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo: 
>>> <sip:aymeric2 at mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at 
>>> receive.c:175
>>> #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460
>>> #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at 
>>> main.c:774
>>>
>>> One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message
>>> is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now
>>> deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
>>>
>>> Tks,
>>> Aymeric
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> * http://www.asipto.com/
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
> Users at lists.kamailio.org
> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
eLearning class for Kamailio 3.0.0
Starting Feb 8, 2010
* http://www.asipto.com/




More information about the sr-dev mailing list