Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-03-04 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Short update on this thread as well: I think I found the issue and tried to come up with a solution in the commit:   - https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/814d5cc1f4f5b1e4b95737108dffc1e7d7bd566f The tests that reproduced the crash rather quickly before the commit (done by Yufei Tao) are

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-26 Thread Abdoul Osséni
Hello, The value of debug level I had during the crash is 2. --- debug=2 --- I checked from my monitoring tools and system logs if the server has encounter any issue (freeze, network lost, database issues, ...) but I found nothing. [image: image.png] [image: image.png] I use Debian (8.6

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Richard Fuchs
On 25/02/2019 13.40, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: I will look into this direction as well, there was something reported also for t_should_relay_response() over the time. You were running 5.2.1? This one was on 5.1.7. Cheers ___ Kamailio (SER)

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
On 25.02.19 19:05, Richard Fuchs wrote: > On 25/02/2019 12.34, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> that's strange, but a while ago someone else reported an issue with >> same backtrace. >> >> So the crash happens at the last line in the next snippet from >> reply_received()

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Richard Fuchs
On 25/02/2019 12.34, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: Hello, that's strange, but a while ago someone else reported an issue with same backtrace. So the crash happens at the last line in the next snippet from reply_received() function in the tm module:     uac=>uac[branch];    

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, that's strange, but a while ago someone else reported an issue with same backtrace. So the crash happens at the last line in the next snippet from reply_received() function in the tm module:     uac=>uac[branch];     LM_DBG("org. status uas=%d, uac[%d]=%d local=%d is_invite=%d)\n",       

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Abdoul Osséni
Hello, Please see attached the output of the gdb commands. Can you check with all core files and see if the backtrace is the same? --> Yes the backtrace is the same. Sorry, I use kamailio v5.2 root@sbc:/var/cores# kamailio -V version: kamailio 5.2.1 (x86_64/linux) cd2583 flags: STATS: Off,

Re: [SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, can you give the output for next gdb commands: bt full info locals list Can you check with all core files and see if the backtrace is the same? What is the version of Kamailio? Is it running on a bare metal server or a virtual machine/container? Cheers, Daniel On 25.02.19 14:21,

[SR-Users] tm.so --> segfault at 3135352e36 ip 00007f761bb57ed1 sp 00007fff9db8b1c0 error 4 in tm.so

2019-02-25 Thread Abdoul Osséni
Hello, Hello dear list, Today, I have had mutiples crashes. It seems it linked to tm.so module. -rw--- 1 root kamailio 4299702272 Feb 25 13:08 core.kamailio.sig11.29204 -rw--- 1 root kamailio 1453023232 Feb 25 13:12 core.kamailio.sig11.29203 -rw--- 1 root kamailio 1416065024 Feb 25