28 Jan
2010
28 Jan
'10
3:56 p.m.
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more
insights...
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message
and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received)
got blocked?
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard
wrote:
This is the exact case:
1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio.
2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com"
3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first
4-> connection failed with logs:
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111)
Connection refused
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send:
connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send:
tcp_send failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value:
sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR
just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all. here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly
without debug symbol!
I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield"
is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send ()
#3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from
/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from
/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool ()
#8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain
with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the
other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking
exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every
lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old
0.9 system
after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution
in this
case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP
traffic, but
in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related
to TPC?
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message
to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of
those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
Cheers,
Daniel
Regards,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users 
28 Jan
28 Jan
4:34 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
some other answer below:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Only udp!
Aymeric
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and
Andrei may have more
insights...
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
1-> TCP connect failed
2-> second SRV is used: TCP connect succeed, but lock in tcp_send
That's what I understand.
I have tested a TCP connection to my server: It seems to be still
working.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message and,
to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received) got
blocked? On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard
wrote:
This is the exact case:
1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio.
2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com"
3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first
4-> connection failed with logs:
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111)
Connection refused
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send:
connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send:
tcp_send failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value:
sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just
tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all. here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly
without debug symbol!
I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield"
is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send ()
#3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from
/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
#7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool ()
#8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain
with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the
other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking
exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every
lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9
system
after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in
this
case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic,
but
in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to
TPC? It's
definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message
to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of
those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp? Cheers,
Daniel
Regards,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
5:23 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
Hello,
On 1/28/10 3:34 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the
message and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that
received) got blocked?
1-> TCP connect failed
2-> second SRV is used: TCP connect succeed, but lock in tcp_send
That's what I understand.
I have tested a TCP connection to my server: It seems to be still
working.
Only udp!
Aymeric
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
some other answer below:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have
> more insights...
>
>
> On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>>> here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol!
can you recompile with debug symbols? Do you have it installed from
package or sources? It will give more hints about the place in the
function...
I will try to reproduce, but now I do not have the proper environment
for testing...
Thanks,
Daniel
> I found
the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield"
> is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
>
> #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
> #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send ()
> #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from
> /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
> #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from
> /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
> #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
> #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
> #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool ()
> #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
>
> I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain
> with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the
> other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking
> exactly one thread each time.
>
> I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every
> lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old
0.9 system
after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the
solution in this
case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP
traffic, but
in the log file and also in your investigations you think its
related to TPC?
This is the exact case:
1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio.
2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com"
3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first
4-> connection failed with logs:
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111)
Connection refused
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send:
tcp_send failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value:
sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover
OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all. It's
definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message
to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of
those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp? Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Regards,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users 
7:27 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message
and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received)
got blocked?
My guess (assuming kamailio 1.5) is that the problem is in tm somewhere
and not in the TCP code. There are hardly any TCP locks used in this
case (connect failure). Most likely the backtrace is bogus.
Andrei
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)?
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
>
>>On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>>here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol!
>>>I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield"
>>>is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
>>>
>>>#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
>>>#1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
>>>#2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send ()
>>>#3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from
>>>/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
>>>#4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from
>>>/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
>>>#5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
>>>#6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so
>>>#7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool ()
>>>#8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
The backtrace looks strange (mem_pool() and load_tm() for example).
It would help greatly to have it compiled with debug symbols from
source (or have around the exact source used for the compiled code).
>>>
>>>I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain
>>>with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the
>>>other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking
>>>exactly one thread each time.
>>>
>>>I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every
>>>lock has an unlock at least...
>>
>>Hi Aymeric,
>>
>>i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old
>>0.9 system
>>after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution
>>in this
>>case, after a restart it was gone again..
If it's kamailio 1.5 (or any version < 3.0) then the sched_yield() means
spinning on a lock. However I'm not sure we can trust the backtrace.
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP
traffic, but
in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related
to TPC?
This is the exact case:
1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio.
2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com"
3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first
4-> connection failed with logs:
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111)
Connection refused
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send:
connect failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send:
tcp_send failed
Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]:
ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value:
sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR
just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message
to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of
those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
9:40 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is branches/1.5
With svn version 5949.
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@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@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia:
SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom:
\"aymeric\" <sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo:
<sip:aymeric2@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
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)?
9:52 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
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
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is branches/1.5
With svn version 5949. 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)?
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@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@mobipouce.com
SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: \"aymeric\"
<sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo:
<sip:aymeric2@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/
10:17 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
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 ;)
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were
related to this version. On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
This is branches/1.5
With svn version 5949. 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)? 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 =====================
Regards,
Aymeric
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@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@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia:
SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom:
\"aymeric\" <sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo:
<sip:aymeric2@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/
10:37 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
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 ;)
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were
related to this
version. On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla
<miconda(a)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. 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
=====================
Regards,
Aymeric
Please include the version when you report a
problem, otherwise we
can hunt in difference places.
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
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@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@mobipouce.com
SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: \"aymeric\"
<sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo:
<sip:aymeric2@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/
2 Feb
2 Feb
1:19 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] kamailio / deadlock3
Hello Aymeric,
I was forwarding some registrations to your domain and didn't get the
deadlock. I did get tcp_send failed many times and then used second dns
record. I have two udp workers.
How fast did you get to lock?
I am using latest 1.5.3 here, what is your output of kamailio -V?
Thanks,
Daniel
On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
eLearning class for Kamailio 3.0.0
Starting Feb 8, 2010
* http://www.asipto.com/
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
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 ;)
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were
related to this
version. On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla
<miconda(a)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. 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
=====================
Regards,
Aymeric
Please include the version when you report a
problem, otherwise we
can hunt in difference places.
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
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@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@mobipouce.com
SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: \"aymeric\"
<sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com>;tag=286101806\r\nTo:
<sip:aymeric2@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/
5407
days inactive
5412
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Aymeric Moizard -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla