Sorry first patch was missing a lock that was required
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Julien Chavanton <jchavan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> We faced a deadlock caused by acquiring the same lock twice in
> src/modules/dmq_usrloc/usrloc_sync.c
>
> dmq_ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
> >> lock_get(_d->table[sl].lock);
> get_urecord_by_ruid
> >> lock_ulslot(_d, sl);
> >>>> lock_get(_d->table[i].lock);
>
> The attached fix will not lock until get_urecord_by_ruid as returned.
>
>
> Regards
> Julien
>
diff --git a/src/modules/dmq_usrloc/usrloc_sync.c b/src/modules/dmq_usrloc/usrloc_sync.c
index 9b966d5..0a9917c 100644
--- a/src/modules/dmq_usrloc/usrloc_sync.c
+++ b/src/modules/dmq_usrloc/usrloc_sync.c
@@ -62,8 +62,6 @@ static int add_contact(str aor, ucontact_info_t* ci)
return -1;
}
- dmq_ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
-
LM_DBG("aor: %.*s\n", aor.len, aor.s);
LM_DBG("ci->ruid: %.*s\n", ci->ruid.len, ci->ruid.s);
LM_DBG("aorhash: %i\n", dmq_ul.get_aorhash(&aor));
@@ -72,6 +70,7 @@ static int add_contact(str aor, ucontact_info_t* ci)
// Search by ruid, if possible
res = dmq_ul.get_urecord_by_ruid(_d, dmq_ul.get_aorhash(&aor), &ci->ruid, &r, &c);
if (res == 0) {
+ dmq_ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
LM_DBG("Found contact\n");
dmq_ul.update_ucontact(r, c, ci);
LM_DBG("Release record\n");
@@ -81,6 +80,8 @@ static int add_contact(str aor, ucontact_info_t* ci)
return 0;
}
}
+
+ dmq_ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
res = dmq_ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
if (res < 0) {
LM_ERR("failed to retrieve record from usrloc\n");
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
