(gdb) bt
#0  0x00002ab61b62779a in update_dialog_dbinfo (cell=0x2ab61c9100f8) at dlg_db_handler.c:501
#1  0x00002ab61b628ea8 in dlg_onreply (t=0x7d5228, type=<value optimized out>, param=<value optimized out>) at dlg_handlers.c:361
#2  0x00002ab617965505 in run_trans_callbacks_internal (cb_lst=0x2ab61c938830, type=128, trans=0x2ab61c9387c0, 
    params=0x7fffec157970) at t_hooks.c:261
#3  0x00002ab61796575e in run_trans_callbacks (type=1, trans=0x88c580, req=0x0, rpl=0x0, code=477060464) at t_hooks.c:288
#4  0x00002ab61798ebd1 in relay_reply (t=0x2ab61c9387c0, p_msg=<value optimized out>, branch=0, msg_status=200, 
    cancel_bitmap=0x7fffec157dd4, do_put_on_wait=1) at t_reply.c:1705
#5  0x00002ab617990884 in reply_received (p_msg=0x8f48a8) at t_reply.c:2126
#6  0x000000000044760e in forward_reply (msg=0x8f48a8) at forward.c:689
#7  0x000000000047fd22 in receive_msg (
    buf=0x869ec0 "SIP/2.0 200 OK\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.202;branch=z9hG4bK75b5.e2a38a16.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.200:5060;branch=z9hG4bK730bcb55;rport=5060\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:10.17.0.202;lr=on;did=c85.6d9b66b3>\r"..., len=<value optimized out>, 
    rcv_info=0x7fffec158020) at receive.c:257
#8  0x0000000000505e2b in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:520
#9  0x0000000000455adf in main_loop () at main.c:1447
#10 0x0000000000456be2 in main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=0x7fffec1582e8) at main.c:2251



(gdb) print cell
$1 = (struct dlg_cell *) 0x2ab61c9100f8



(gdb) print *cell
$2 = {ref = 2, next = 0x0, prev = 0x0, h_id = 996587990, h_entry = 1420, state = 3, lifetime = 3600, start_ts = 1271816397, 
  dflags = 1, sflags = 0, toroute = 0, from_rr_nb = 0, tl = {next = 0x0, prev = 0x0, timeout = 0}, callid = {
    s = 0x2ab61c910238 "0901b21e13a60e0247988caf7d72f865@10.17.0.200sip:029147089@10.17.0.200sip:4153@hiddendomain.edusip:4153@10.17.40.77:5060;user=phone;transport=udpent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n", len = 44}, from_uri = {
    s = 0x2ab61c910264 "sip:029147089@10.17.0.200sip:4153@hiddendomain.edusip:4153@10.17.40.77:5060;user=phone;transport=udpent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n", len = 25}, to_uri = {
    s = 0x2ab61c91027d "sip:4153@hiddendomain.edusip:4153@10.17.40.77:5060;user=phone;transport=udpent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n", len = 19}, 
  req_uri = {s = 0x2ab61c910290 "sip:4153@10.17.40.77:5060;user=phone;transport=udpent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n", len = 50}, tag = {{
      s = 0x2ab61c91c488 "as50d7852dsip:029147089@10.17.0.200\034�*", len = 10}, {s = 0x0, len = 0}}, cseq = {{
      s = 0x2ab61c857950 "10213331\b", len = 3}, {s = 0x0, len = 0}}, route_set = {{s = 0x0, len = 0}, {s = 0x0, len = 0}}, 
  contact = {{s = 0x2ab61c91c492 "sip:029147089@10.17.0.200\034�*", len = 25}, {s = 0x0, len = 0}}, bind_addr = {0x88c580, 0x0}, 
  cbs = {first = 0x0, types = 0}, profile_links = 0x0}



(gdb) frame 7
#7  0x000000000047fd22 in receive_msg (
    buf=0x869ec0 "SIP/2.0 200 OK\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.202;branch=z9hG4bK75b5.e2a38a16.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.200:5060;branch=z9hG4bK730bcb55;rport=5060\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:10.17.0.202;lr=on;did=c85.6d9b66b3>\r"..., len=<value optimized out>, 
    rcv_info=0x7fffec158020) at receive.c:257
257 forward_reply(msg);



(gdb) print buf+100
$3 = 0x869f24 ".200:5060;branch=z9hG4bK730bcb55;rport=5060\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:10.17.0.202;lr=on;did=c85.6d9b66b3>\r\nFrom: \"029147089\" <sip:029147089@10.17.0.200>;tag=as50d7852d\r\nTo: <sip:4153@hiddendomain.edu>;tag=4735210"...



(gdb) print buf+200
$4 = 0x869f88 "\nFrom: \"029147089\" <sip:029147089@10.17.0.200>;tag=as50d7852d\r\nTo: <sip:4153@hiddendomain.edu>;tag=473521065\r\nCall-ID: 0901b21e13a60e0247988caf7d72f865@10.17.0.200\r\nCSeq: 102 INVITE\r\nServer: Cisco ATA 186  "...



(gdb) print buf+300
$5 = 0x869fec "65\r\nCall-ID: 0901b21e13a60e0247988caf7d72f865@10.17.0.200\r\nCSeq: 102 INVITE\r\nServer: Cisco ATA 186  v3.2.0 atasip (041111A)\r\nAllow: ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INVITE, NOTIFY, OPTIONS, REFER, REGISTER, PRACK, U"...

Kelvin Chua


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,


On 4/21/10 12:23 PM, Kelvin Chua wrote:
hi daniel,

i'm not using git version. so maybe i'm missing some patches. can you confirm if what i am
experiencing is the same problem and the fix is indeed available from the git version? thanks

I recommend using at least 3.0.1, as a matter of fact 3.0.2 should be released soon.

Can you please print the content of cell adn more of the reply in gdb, here are the commands:


gdb /path/to/kamailio core_file

print cell

print *cell

frame 7

print buf+100

print buf+200

print buf+300

Thanks,
Daniel


here is the backtrace:

#0  0x00002ab61b62779a in update_dialog_dbinfo (cell=0x2ab61c9100f8) at dlg_db_handler.c:501
#1  0x00002ab61b628ea8 in dlg_onreply (t=0x7d5228, type=<value optimized out>, param=<value optimized out>) at dlg_handlers.c:361
#2  0x00002ab617965505 in run_trans_callbacks_internal (cb_lst=0x2ab61c938830, type=128, trans=0x2ab61c9387c0, 
    params=0x7fffec157970) at t_hooks.c:261
#3  0x00002ab61796575e in run_trans_callbacks (type=1, trans=0x88c580, req=0x0, rpl=0x0, code=477060464) at t_hooks.c:288
#4  0x00002ab61798ebd1 in relay_reply (t=0x2ab61c9387c0, p_msg=<value optimized out>, branch=0, msg_status=200, 
    cancel_bitmap=0x7fffec157dd4, do_put_on_wait=1) at t_reply.c:1705
#5  0x00002ab617990884 in reply_received (p_msg=0x8f48a8) at t_reply.c:2126
#6  0x000000000044760e in forward_reply (msg=0x8f48a8) at forward.c:689
#7  0x000000000047fd22 in receive_msg (
    buf=0x869ec0 "SIP/2.0 200 OK\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.202;branch=z9hG4bK75b5.e2a38a16.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.17.0.200:5060;branch=z9hG4bK730bcb55;rport=5060\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:10.17.0.202;lr=on;did=c85.6d9b66b3>\r"..., len=<value optimized out>, 
    rcv_info=0x7fffec158020) at receive.c:257
#8  0x0000000000505e2b in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:520
#9  0x0000000000455adf in main_loop () at main.c:1447
#10 0x0000000000456be2 in main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=0x7fffec1582e8) at main.c:2251


Kelvin Chua


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

are you using the latest git version of branch kamailio_3.0? It was a fix to dialog after the 3.0.0 release, adding some sanity checks for broken messages:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=787fabb1e0085355aa1eeb77d5f17e7940f4ed3c

On the other hand, I see you got a core dump file:
Apr 21 10:19:57 kamvm-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[28507]: ALERT: <core> [main.c:722]: child process 28511 exited by a signal 11
Apr 21 10:19:57 kamvm-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[28507]: ALERT: <core> [main.c:725]: core was generated

Locate the core file and sent the backtrace. The core is either in root '/' folder or in working directory (if you provided by -w parameter).

Use the gdb:

gdb /path/to/kamailio core_file

then do bt and send here.

Thanks,
Daniel

On 4/21/10 11:38 AM, Kelvin Chua wrote:
ok, i'll enable debug for now.
but if it's indeed a buggy UA, the dialog module should not have crashed 
but instead dropped the dialog/session and moved on, something i think
we need to address to be more resilient.

i hope i catch the culprit when this happens again.

Kelvin Chua


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
2010/4/21 Kelvin Chua <kelchy@gmail.com>:
> i wonder if anybody from list is also experiencing this?

Perhaps in your case you have a buggy UA setting an invalid Contact
header and it causes Kamailio to crash, maybe the reason others have
not detected same issue.

Could you get some SIP traces until the problem occurs again?
or perhaps could you enable the debug?

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>


_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list