[SR-Users] dialog: cseq + EARLY dialog

[Halina Nowak]

Hello,

These modifications as well as those for EARLY dialog were implemented 
in the solution using PRACK and 2 UPDATEs (one in each direction ) 
before 200OK.

The cseq numbering was incorrect when server itself decided to cut the 
communication and sent 2 BYEs.
The cseqs in UPDATEs where 2 and 22 and in BYEs they were 1 and 21 
instead of 3 and 23, so BYEs were rejected by clients.

Always in this solution I detected memory leak on cseq, not on tag. 
Maybe this memory leak was because of using UPDATEs - I'm not sure.
I've implemented these modifications 3 years ago and I've "found" them 
porting our solution to kamailio4.

Cheers

Halina Nowak


On 06/21/2013 07:32 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> some comments inline.
>
> On 6/14/13 2:03 PM, Halina Nowak wrote:
>> Proposal for cseq:
>>
>> cseq numbering:
>>
>> --- a/modules/dialog/dlg_handlers.c    Wed Apr 03 13:33:38 2013 +0200
>> +++ b/modules/dialog/dlg_handlers.c    Fri Jun 14 13:39:47 2013 +0200
>> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
>>          cseq = (get_cseq(msg))->number;
>>      } else {
>>          /* use the same as in request */
>> -        cseq = dlg->cseq[DLG_CALLER_LEG];
>> +        cseq = dlg->cseq[DLG_CALLEE_LEG];
>
> at quick check, the comment says the cseq is taken from the request 
> because it is processing the reply in this part of the code.
>
> You change that to take the value of the stored cseq for callee, which 
> is different than the current processed message.
>
> What was the problem you discovered? Can you give an example to 
> understand this change?
>
>>      }
>>
>>
>> avoid memory leak:
>>
>> --- a/modules/dialog/dlg_hash.c    Fri Jun 14 13:40:12 2013 +0200
>> +++ b/modules/dialog/dlg_hash.c    Fri Jun 14 13:45:21 2013 +0200
>> @@ -485,7 +485,14 @@
>>      char *p;
>>
>>      dlg->tag[leg].s = (char*)shm_malloc( tag->len + rr->len + 
>> contact->len );
>> -    dlg->cseq[leg].s = (char*)shm_malloc( cseq->len );
>> +    if(dlg->cseq[leg].s){
>> +      if (dlg->cseq[leg].len < cseq->len) {
>> +        shm_free(dlg->cseq[leg].s);
>> +        dlg->cseq[leg].s = (char*)shm_malloc(cseq->len);
>> +      }
>> +    }else{
>> +      dlg->cseq[leg].s = (char*)shm_malloc( cseq->len );
>> +    }
>>      if ( dlg->tag[leg].s==NULL || dlg->cseq[leg].s==NULL) {
>>          LM_ERR("no more shm mem\n");
>>          if (dlg->tag[leg].s)
> I see tag is also allocated each time, isn't it exposed to same issue? 
> You changed only cseq to reuse existing buffer or free the old one and 
> allocate a bigger one when needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -http://www.asipto.com
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda  -http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20130624/c2b30e66/attachment.html>