[Kamailio-Users] Fwd: TLS Multiple records not read
Jijo Jose
realjijo at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 15:51:37 CET 2010
Hi Klaus,
Sorry for sending the screenshot..
In the 2nd record, i see 2 CRLF at the end of sip message.
I'm using openser 1.1, I just verified kamailio 1.4 to see any changes in
the TLS module. The code base for TLS in openser 1.1 and kamailio 1.4 is
same.
Thanks
Jijo
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Klaus Darilion <
klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote:
> Hi Jijo!
>
> - Next time, please do not send a screenshot, but the pcap file (if it
> would contain private data, send it privately)
>
> - the screenshot shows the first message, but more interesting is the
> second message
>
> - which version of Kamailio do you use (kamailio -V)? You mentioned that
> you compared the codebase between 1.4 and 1.1 - why? Doesn't 1.1 show this
> behavior?
>
> regards
> Klaus
>
> Jijo Jose schrieb:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>> The SIP server is reading only the first record(first sip message), the
>> _tls_read() function's log shows the length of first sip message which is
>> matching with length of first record in wireshark.. This means SSL_read
>> returns only the first record.
>> I did the test using TCP which is working fine as it is reading two sip
>> messages on a single read.
>> Please find the log and attached print screen of wireshark traces.
>>
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: io_wait_loop_sigio_rt: siginfo:
>> signal=35 (35), si_code=1, si_band=0x41, si_fd=37
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: TCPCONN: handle_io: fd map
>> 0x1011d73c (37): {37, 2, 0x30294da0}
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: tls_update_fd: New fd is 37
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: _tls_read: 559 bytes read
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: read= 559 bytes, parsed=559,
>> state=4, error=1
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: tcp_read_req: last char=0x0A,
>> parsed msg= BYE sip:551138175007 at 21.21.81.11:6061;transport=tls SIP/2.0^M
>> To: SIP5007_TLS_SIMPLEX <sip:551138175007 at 41.41.0.230<sip%3A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230><mailto:
>> sip%3A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230 <sip%253A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230>>>;tag=91c2c894c0^M
>> From: <sip:551138175008 at 41.41.0.230:5061;transport=tls>;tag=snl_G84KdX4MLT^M
>> Call-ID: 0ad3e453326a4160^M CSeq: 1 BYE^M Route: <sip:21.21.27.10:5061;transport=tls;ftag=91c2c894c0;lr=on>^M
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 41.41.0.230:5061;branch=z9hG4bK_brancha_41.41.0.230_KonTU5DMPx^M
>> Accept-Language: en;q=0.0^M Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL,
>> NOTIFY, REFER^M Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:41:36 GMT ^M Max-Forwards: 69^M
>> Content-Length: 0^M ^M Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]:
>> tcp_read_req: end of header part
>>
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: - received from: port 5061
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: - received from: ip 41.41.0.230
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: tcp_read_req: headers: BYE
>> sip:551138175007 at 21.21.81.11:6061;transport=tls SIP/2.0^M To:
>> SIP5007_TLS_SIMPLEX <sip:551138175007 at 41.41.0.230<sip%3A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230><mailto:
>> sip%3A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230 <sip%253A551138175007 at 41.41.0.230>>>;tag=91c2c894c0^M
>> From: <sip:551138175008 at 41.41.0.230:5061;transport=tls>;tag=snl_G84KdX4MLT^M
>> Call-ID: 0ad3e453326a4160^M CSeq: 1 BYE^M Route: <sip:21.21.27.10:5061;transport=tls;ftag=91c2c894c0;lr=on>^M
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 41.41.0.230:5061;branch=z9hG4bK_brancha_41.41.0.230_KonTU5DMPx^M
>> Accept-Language: en;q=0.0^M Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL,
>> NOTIFY, REFER^M Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:41:36 GMT ^M Max-Forwards: 69^M
>> Content-Length: 0^M ^M .
>>
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: tcp_read_req: content-length= 0
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: tcp_read_req: body: Jan 22
>> 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: calling receive_msg(0x30294e14, 559, )
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: SIP Request:
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: method: <BYE>
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: uri:
>> <sip:551138175007 at 21.21.81.11:6061;transport=tls>
>> Jan 22 20:41:37 REGS-1a0240 openser[936]: version: <SIP/2.0>
>> Thanks
>> Jijo
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Klaus Darilion <
>> klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would verify if the received fragment really contains 2 complete
>> SIP messages (e.g. 2xCRLF at the end of the SIP headers and if
>> Content-Length header is correct).
>>
>> For debugging, TLS is PITA.
>>
>> Maybe the SIP server shows the same behavior when using TCP.
>> Otherwise you can try to configure the NULL:CIPHER on both servers -
>> then you see the plaintext SIP message in the TLS packets.
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>> Jijo Jose wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> We have a SIP server which enabled NAGLE algorithm and proxy as
>> openser ver 1.1
>> SIP Server send a TLS multiple records( 2 SIP messages) in a
>> packet to openser. Openser is reading only the first record(
>> first SIP message). The second TLS record(sip message) is read
>> only when the next message recieved by openser from the SIP Server.
>> I would like to know anybody observed this issue. I have
>> compared the codebase of kamailio 1.4 and openser 1.1 but
>> didin't find any diffrence for TLS.
>> I have looked at the API _tls_read() in openser which is same
>> as that of kamilio.
>> Don't we need to use SSL_pending() after SSL_read() to verify
>> any buffer is left in the SSL layer ?
>> Do you think is it due to the poll method error? The poll
>> method we use is POLL_SIGIO_RT
>> Please let me know your comments.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Jijo
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>
>>
>> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>> http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20100125/477e461b/attachment.htm>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list