Hi And this is the gdb output for another crash from today as well (very likely the same bug):  http://pastebin.com/0XU2BRgS gdb : (gdb) frame 0 #0  qm_detach_free (qm=0x7f563a226010, size=64) at mem/q_malloc.c:269 269in mem/q_malloc.c (gdb)  #0  qm_detach_free (qm=0x7f563a226010, size=64) at mem/q_malloc.c:269 269in mem/q_malloc.c (gdb) p *frag $5 = {size = 64, u = {nxt_free = 0x7f563a3ee550, is_free = 140008321115472}} (gdb)  $6 = {size = 64, u = {nxt_free = 0x7f563a3ee550, is_free = 140008321115472}} (gdb)  $7 = {size = 64, u = {nxt_free = 0x7f563a3ee550, is_free = 140008321115472}} (gdb) p *((char*)frag + sizeof(struct qm_frag)) $8 = 1 '\001' Regards, Dragos On , Dragos Oancea <droancea(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Here is the output: gdb)  (gdb) frame 0 #0  qm_detach_free (qm=0x7fd96175e010, size=112) at mem/q_malloc.c:266 266in mem/q_malloc.c (gdb)  #0  qm_detach_free (qm=0x7fd96175e010, size=112) at mem/q_malloc.c:266 266in mem/q_malloc.c (gdb) p *frag $1 = {size = 7599108840079127868, u = {nxt_free = 0x3965663931343a64, is_free = 4135824228634344036}} (gdb)  $2 = {size = 7599108840079127868, u = {nxt_free = 0x3965663931343a64, is_free = 4135824228634344036}} (gdb)  $3 = {size = 7599108840079127868, u = {nxt_free = 0x3965663931343a64, is_free = 4135824228634344036}} (gdb) p *((char*)frag + sizeof(struct qm_frag)) $4 = 99 'c' Is it okay to run with MEMDBG=1 in production ? Wouldn't it make it a little slow ? Just let me know if u want so see something else with gdb. Unfortunally  I do not have SIP traces, but I have the core file and some logs. Regards, Dragos On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:50 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello, can you provde the output in gdb for: frame 0 p *frag p *((char*)frag + sizeof(struct qm_frag)) There were similar reports, so apparently there is a buffer overflow somewhere. You should update to latest git branch 4.0, because there were some other fixes from 4.0.3. With this occasion, you should set MEMDBG=1 in Makefile.defs before recompiling the new version to be able to catch easier the overwrites of memory. Cheers, Daniel On 11/21/13 6:36 PM, Dragos Oancea wrote: Hello sr-dev mailing list sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28 - more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -

Hi Here is the output. 1st core file: (gdb) p *(struct qm_frag_end*)((char*)frag-sizeof(struct qm_frag_end)) $1 = {size = 64, prev_free = 0x7fd961885e90} 2nd core file: (gdb) p *(struct qm_frag_end*)((char*)frag-sizeof(struct qm_frag_end)) $1 = {size = 64, prev_free = 0x7f563a34e0d0} Regards, Dragos On Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:58 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello, the values are invalid, probably the previous fragment was writing more. For now, can you give: p *(struct qm_frag_end*)((char*)frag-sizeof(struct qm_frag_end)) I expect to be some invalid values as well. Later I will try to come up with a gdb script to spot the previous fragment. MEMDBG=1 will make it slightly slower and increases a bit the overhead. But I guess you don't run at the limits of CPU. In the past we used to have it for couple of releases on and nobody complained about performances. Cheers, Daniel On 11/21/13 7:39 PM, Dragos Oancea wrote: Hi There were similar reports, so apparently there is a buffer overflow somewhere. there were some other fixes from 4.0.3. With this occasion, you should set MEMDBG=1 in Makefile.defs before recompiling the new version to be able to catch easier the overwrites of memory.