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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

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. On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 
1.5.3.

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/