> On July 18, 2014, 10:40 a.m., Mark Michelson wrote: > > /trunk/include/asterisk/res_pjsip.h, lines 1195-1203 > > <https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3817/diff/2/?file=64713#file64713line1195> > > > > This function isn't necessary. When PJSIP is passed a URI string, PJSIP > > will perform URI validation for us and return an error if a badly-formed > > URI is passed in. > > Jonathan Rose wrote: > I was absolutely getting crashes when using URIs that didn't start with > 'sip:' or else were only 'sip:' without anything appended to them. I'm not > sure if that will keep being the case if we use the default endpoint like > suggested below, but if it does then I might need to keep this around. > > Jonathan Rose wrote: > After testing it with the default outbound endpoint, it was still able to > cause crashes. Rats. > > Mark Michelson wrote: > Where does the crash occur? Is it in Asterisk's lower-level res_pjsip > code, or is it in PJSIP itself? If the crash is in Asterisk, it sounds like > there are some assumptions being made in the lower levels that shouldn't be > made and those should be fixed there. If the crash is in PJSIP (especially if > it's an assertion failure), then that means we do have to do some validation > before calling down into PJSIP, but that validation should be left to the > core res_pjsip code rather than being the duty of users of the res_pjsip API. > > If we do need to perform validation of the URI, the implementation has > some issues. It's limiting since it only allows for sip: URIs and not, for > instance, sips: URIs. It also only checks that the prefix is valid for a sip: > URI. It does no other checking of the rest of the URI. A more thorough way of > checking validity of the URI is to use pjsip_parse_uri() from PJSIP. If you > then want to make sure that the URI is a sip: or sips: URI, you can use the > PJSIP_URI_SCHEME_IS_SIP() and PJSIP_URI_SCHEME_IS_SIPS() macros to do so.
Oi, it turned out that adding the outbound endpoint did fix it, I just forgot to add the outbound endpoint to the call that actually created the request... I only added it the function that sent it. Update coming shortly. - Jonathan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3817/#review12744 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 18, 2014, 1:32 p.m., Jonathan Rose wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3817/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 18, 2014, 1:32 p.m.) > > > Review request for Asterisk Developers, Matt Jordan and Mark Michelson. > > > Repository: Asterisk > > > Description > ------- > > Example: > > Action: PJSIPNotify > URI: sip:10.10.10.10 > > pjsip send notify uri <type> uri <uri> [uri...] > > > Adds the ability to use URIs with the PJSIP notify commands instead of > endpoints. These mostly work the same as the endpoint notifications. > > > Diffs > ----- > > /trunk/res/res_pjsip_notify.c 418868 > /trunk/res/res_pjsip.c 418868 > /trunk/include/asterisk/res_pjsip.h 418868 > > Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3817/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Used existing endpoint notification and compared it to similar notifies done > against URIs. The outgoing messages looked the same as far as the details I > was concerned with went. > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Rose > >
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
