[SR-Users] permissions module address_reload not working

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 7/1/10 4:39 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>    
>> this is another issue ... the mi commands were designed to be run from
>> special processes, created by mi transport modules (mi_fifo,
>> mi_datagram, etc). There are special init functions called for these
>> processes. However, with 3.0 xmlrpc module can call these functions but
>> the module re-uses SIP tcp processes, meaning that what is called in mi
>> init child function should be called in child init functions.
>>      
> mi trusted_reload from the same module works fine using both crt and
> xmlrpc:
>    

yes, checking the sources I see trusted and address operations use 
different db handlers. The one for trusted is initialized from 
child_init, while the other one is not. Probably because the trusted can 
work in non-cache mode and need the connection for sip worker.


> # sip-proxy_ctl mi trusted_reload
> #
>
> Jul  1 17:35:35 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[11824]: INFO: Handling XMLRPC POST from<127.0.0.1>  with body<<?xml version="1.0" ?><methodCall><methodName>mi</methodName><params><param><value><string>trusted_reload</string></value></param></params></methodCall>>
>
> so may the same kind of implementation could be used also for
> address_realod.
>
>    
>> - call all mi child init functions in mi_rpc child_init even for SIP
>> worker process - in the previous commit I added execution only for
>> PROC_RPC. But then each module exporting mi commands has to be reviewed
>> to see if there is no overlapping (usually is about opening db
>> connection, thus make sure it is not opened twice in same process)
>> - execute per module mi init fuction specific for that module. This will
>> ensure that mi command become available to xmlrpc module gradually but
>> safe. It has a drawback of initializing MI specific stuff for each
>> process even when mi_rpc is not loaded, thus such things are not needed
>> at runtime
>>
>> Both options requires check over the mi cmd modules. Right now I think
>> option 1 is better, because it does not initialize db connections when
>> not needed, other opinions?
>>      
> another opinion is: replace permissions module mi commands with rpc
> ones.
>    
it is an option, somehow in the global to-do list to replace mi with 
rpc. Right now, this issue is not only for permissions module, is also 
affecting other mi cmds which are going to be used over xmlrpc module -- 
using mi commands via rpc interface with sercmd is different and there 
is no issue with that.

Cheers,
Daniel


-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/