23 Oct
2014
23 Oct
'14
11:28 a.m.
Hi guys,
I've cross compiled Kamailio (4.1.6) for ARM (Wandboard-IMX6). Everything
seems works fine, but when I try to enable rtpproxy-ng module and Alignment
trap error occurred just during rtpp_test (exchanging ping-ponge message
betweek rtpproxy and rtpproxy-ng module of Kamailio)
rtpengine[2258]: Got valid command from 127.0.0.1:50470: ping - { "command":
"ping" }
rtpengine[2258]: Returning to SIP proxy: d6:result4:ponge
user.err kernel: [66832.254887] Alignment trap: not handling instruction
edc30b08 at [<40b3a130>]
user.alert kernel: [66832.262030] Unhandled fault: alignment exception
(0x801) at 0x4033a782
local0.err kamailio: ERROR: <core> [daemonize.c:307]: daemonize(): Main
process exited before writing to pipe
In x86 architecture same packages works correctly without any problem.
Does anybody encountered this kind of error?
Marino
-----
Marino Mileti
--
View this message in context:
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Kamailio-for-ARM-with-rtpproxy-ng-t…
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
23 Oct
23 Oct
4:51 p.m.
On 10/23/14 05:28, Marino Mileti wrote:
Hi guys,
I've cross compiled Kamailio (4.1.6) for ARM (Wandboard-IMX6). Everything
seems works fine, but when I try to enable rtpproxy-ng module and Alignment
trap error occurred just during rtpp_test (exchanging ping-ponge message
betweek rtpproxy and rtpproxy-ng module of Kamailio)
rtpengine[2258]: Got valid command from 127.0.0.1:50470: ping - { "command":
"ping" }
rtpengine[2258]: Returning to SIP proxy: d6:result4:ponge
user.err kernel: [66832.254887] Alignment trap: not handling instruction
edc30b08 at [<40b3a130>]
user.alert kernel: [66832.262030] Unhandled fault: alignment exception
(0x801) at 0x4033a782
local0.err kamailio: ERROR: <core> [daemonize.c:307]: daemonize(): Main
process exited before writing to pipe
In x86 architecture same packages works correctly without any problem.
Which version of rtpengine is that? There are some places in the code
where misaligned pointers might be a problem and one such instance was
fixed recently. If this is the most recent version, I can try to fix the
pointer alignment if you can figure out where exactly it happens.
cheers
5:32 p.m.
Version is 3.3.0.0 mr3.5.0.0
I've seen that the problem is during the "ping-pong test" when the value of
bencode_item is assigned
The error is on __bencode_dictionary_init, and the istruction is :
dict->value=0
I've read ARM documentation and it says to add __attribute__((packed)) to
value definition inside bencode_item struct. In my case i've done:
long long int value __attribute__((packed));
I've tried and it works. I don't know if this is the right solution.
What do you think about it?
Richard Fuchs wrote
Which version
of rtpengine is that? There are some places in the code
where misaligned pointers might be a problem and one such instance was
fixed recently. If this is the most recent version, I can try to fix the
pointer alignment if you can figure out where exactly it happens.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@.sip-router
-----
Marino Mileti
--
View this message in context:
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Kamailio-for-ARM-with-rtpproxy-ng-t…
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:47 p.m.
On 10/23/14 11:32, Marino Mileti wrote:
Version is 3.3.0.0 mr3.5.0.0
I've seen that the problem is during the "ping-pong test" when the value
of
bencode_item is assigned
The error is on __bencode_dictionary_init, and the istruction is :
dict->value=0
I've read ARM documentation and it says to add __attribute__((packed)) to
value definition inside bencode_item struct. In my case i've done:
long long int value __attribute__((packed));
I've tried and it works. I don't know if this is the right solution.
What do you think about it?
Interesting. I'm not sure why this is required for this value, but hey,
if it works... Let me know if you run into any more trouble.
cheers
27 Oct
27 Oct
11:57 a.m.
Richard Fuchs wrote
Interesting. I'm not sure why this is required for
this value, but hey,
if it works... Let me know if you run into any more trouble.
Bad news..the __attribute__((packed)) modification allows only the kernel to
fixup the alignment trap but it still exist and i don't know if this can be
a problem during calls..
Do you have some suggest in order to fix this issue?
-----
Marino Mileti
--
View this message in context:
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Kamailio-for-ARM-with-rtpproxy-ng-t…
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3:17 p.m.
On 10/27/14 06:57, Marino Mileti wrote:
Richard Fuchs wrote
Unfortunately my understanding of ARM alignment restrictions is very
limited, in fact so limited that I don't understand why this particular
instruction even is a problem to begin with. My only suggestions would
be to either declare the entire struct as packed, or try adding some gcc
flags to the makefile (-munaligned-access or -mno-unaligned-access,
apparently it depends on what kind of kernel you're running), recompile
the entire source and see if that fixes anything. Other than that, I'm
at a loss.
cheers
Interesting. I'm not sure why this is
required for this value, but hey,
if it works... Let me know if you run into any more trouble.
Bad news..the __attribute__((packed)) modification allows only the kernel to
fixup the alignment trap but it still exist and i don't know if this can be
a problem during calls..
Do you have some suggest in order to fix this issue?
3689
days inactive
3693
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Marino Mileti -
Richard Fuchs