[sr-dev] TM possible deadlock

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

that should not be a very rare case and I would expect to be caught so 
far, anyhow ... this looks like easy to reproduce, have you tried it?

You can have two kamailio, one relying the invite to the second, which 
will reply with 100, then wait for the timeout on the first instance. 
You can add some debug messages in the code to see if the lock is called 
twice.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 09/04/14 17:51, Jason Penton wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have been experiencing a deadlock when a timeout occurs on a 
> t_relayed() INVITE. Going through the code I have noticed a possible 
> chance of deadlock (without re-entrant enabled). Here is my thinking:
>
> t_should_relay_response() is called with REPLY_LOCK when the timer 
> process fires on the fr_inv_timer (no response from the INVITE that 
> was relayed, other than 100 provisional) and a 408 is generated. 
> However, from within that function there are calls 
> to run_failure_handlers() which in turn *could* try and lock the reply 
> (viz. somebody having a t_reply() call in the cfg file - in failure 
> route block). This would result in another lock on the same 
> transaction's REPLY_LOCK....
>
> Has anybody else experienced something like this?
>
> this is on master btw.
>
> Cheers
> Jason
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20140409/c5475dd3/attachment-0001.html>