[Serusers] Problems with REGISTER

Ravic Costa ravic.costa at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 21:25:18 CEST 2005


hi again,

I'm having another problem.
I can already run ser-0.9.0, but there is a problem when
a client tries to register.

I edit the method REGISTER so that all the requests could be accepted:

  if (method=="REGISTER") {
    log(1, "LOG: Someone registred\n");
    if (!save("location")) {
      sl_reply_error();
     };
    break;
  };

However, with the method,

  if (method=="REGISTER" && nat_uac_test("3")) {
    fix_nated_contact();
    log(1, "LOG: Someone registred\n");
    force_rport();
    setflag(2);
  };

the login failed and i got the following errors:

 4(6453) qm_free: freeing frag. 0x81588c4 alloc'ed from 
parser/msg_parser.c: parse_headers(278)
 4(6453) qm_free(0x810bba0, 0x815f428), called from receive.c: 
receive_msg(234)
 4(6453) qm_free: freeing frag. 0x815f410 alloc'ed from receive.c: 
receive_msg(92)
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) called from nathelper.c: timer(1539)
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) returns address 0x815cf98 frag. 
0x815cf80 (size=8) on 1 -th hit
 6(6462) qm_free(0x810bba0, 0x815cf98), called from nathelper.c: timer(1594)
 6(6462) qm_free: freeing frag. 0x815cf80 alloc'ed from nathelper.c: 
timer(1539)
 3(6452) udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 213.22.190.48 50195
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) called from nathelper.c: timer(1539)
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) returns address 0x815cf98 frag. 
0x815cf80 (size=8) on 1 -th hit
 6(6462) qm_free(0x810bba0, 0x815cf98), called from nathelper.c: timer(1594)
 6(6462) qm_free: freeing frag. 0x815cf80 alloc'ed from nathelper.c: 
timer(1539)
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) called from nathelper.c: timer(1539)
 6(6462) qm_malloc(0x810bba0, 8) returns address 0x815cf98 frag. 
0x815cf80 (size=8) on 1 -th hit
 6(6462) qm_free(0x810bba0, 0x815cf98), called from nathelper.c: timer(1594)
 6(6462) qm_free: freeing frag. 0x815cf80 alloc'ed from nathelper.c: 
timer(1539)
 5(6461) udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 213.22.190.48 50195

Does anyone know what could be the problem?

Best regards,

Ravic Costa




More information about the sr-users mailing list