[Kamailio-Users] [sr-dev] kamailio / deadlock3
miconda at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 21:37:21 CET 2010
On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 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
> Sorry, I though I did mentioned it in my initial mail (sent on
> kamailio mailing list) however, it waz not the case.
> I would have asked on ser-users if it was 3.0 ;)
kamailio 3.0.0 is on this mailing list, being latest stable version of
kamailio. sr-users is mainly for mainstream sip-router users. serusers
is for ser project users.
i do not care if kamailio and sr-users get mixed, though, i prefer
kamailio to be discussed here, there are different default setting for
it than in other 3.0 branches.
>> On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
> I'm pretty sure it's 1.5.3: changelog starts with:
> ===================== 2009-10-XX Kamailio v1.5.3 released
>> Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we
>> can hunt in difference places.
>>> Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb
>>> (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:22.214.171.124;r2=on;lr=on>\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS
>>> 126.96.36.199:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at
>>> #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
>>> #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at
>>> #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at
>>> #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at
>>> #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at
>>> #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
>>> #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460
>>> #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at
>>> 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.
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> * http://www.asipto.com/
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
More information about the sr-users