[sr-dev] Possible bug in RLS module

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

On 3/29/11 4:10 PM, Peter Dunkley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I may have found a bug in the RLS module.
>
> Take two subscribers (alice and bob) who have each other in their 
> contact lists.  Log them in (so REGISTER, SUBSCRIBE(presence.winfo), 
> SUBSCRIBE(presence), PUBLISH, and so on).  Log one (bob) out.  bob's 
> status remains online in alice's client.  Restart alice's client 
> (logging her out and in again).  bob's status is still shown as online.
>
> Has anyone encountered this before?
to understand properly, bob's presence document is deleted when he 
logged out, but alice still sees bob online after her client is logged 
out and then logged in?

Is this happening all the time when doing such operations?

I will try to check the sources, the module was hard to test without a 
SIP client supporting rls properly and reproducing what you say is not 
trivial as well because of the same reasons.

Cheers,
Daniel
>
> I think it might be related to some errors I am seeing.  When my 
> client unSUBSCRIBEs on sign-out I get the following errors (the line 
> numbers may be slightly out from the base 3.1.2 version as I added 
> some diagnostics to try and find the problem):
>
>     Mar 29 13:57:51 supernode /usr/sbin/kamailio[20259]: ERROR: rls
>     [notify.c:280]: updating in hash table
>     Mar 29 13:57:51 supernode /usr/sbin/kamailio[20259]: ERROR: rls
>     [notify.c:150]: in function agg_body_sendn_update
>     Mar 29 13:57:51 supernode /usr/sbin/kamailio[20259]: ERROR: rls
>     [subscribe.c:638]: failed sending full state notify
>     Mar 29 13:57:51 supernode /usr/sbin/kamailio[20259]: ERROR: rls
>     [subscribe.c:678]: occured in rls_handle_subscribe
>
> I believe this is happening because send_full_notify() is called after 
> update_rlsubs() is called in rls_handle_subscribe().  update_rlsubs() 
> will delete the entry from the hash table when "Expires: 0" is set - 
> as is the case for an unSUBSCRIBE.
>
> Can anyone suggest what the correct behaviour should be?

>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20110330/170774b8/attachment.htm>