Adding further to this, it seems to me the real problem is that I can't use
t_release() in an async resume route, because it's internally structured to
take place inside a failure_route context. If I could, I think that would rid
me of the first transaction after I send the challenge and call 'exit'.
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> wrote:
>
> As a test, I tried to put the auth_challenge() in the request_route before
> any async suspension, and in that case works fine.
>
> The issue is definitely with the way auth_challenge() issued from _within_ an
> async resume route (failure_route context) bears upon transaction state.
>
> -- Alex
>
>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, the difference seems pretty clear. In a scenario with an auth
>> challenge and no subsequent INVITE+credentials, the negative ACK is matched:
>>
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:389]: receive_msg(): --- received sip
>> message - request - call-id: [01eed151-4234-4518-9a0e-9b9168f21a3f] - cseq:
>> [288439 ACK]
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:261]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event
>> route core:pre-routing not defined
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:471]: receive_msg(): preparing to run
>> routing scripts...
>> 4(54) DEBUG: sl [sl_funcs.c:447]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late to be a local
>> ACK!
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_hname2.c:301]:
>> parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header name [Content-Length] type 12
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:187]: get_hdr_field():
>> content_length=0
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:91]: get_hdr_field(): found
>> end of header
>> 4(54) DEBUG: maxfwd [mf_funcs.c:55]: is_maxfwd_present(): max_forwards
>> header not found!
>> 4(54) DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found
>> 4(54) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:108]: find_first_route(): No Route headers found
>> 4(54) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:1006]: loose_route_mode(): There is no Route HF
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1053]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>> id=14/54 global id=13/54 T start=0
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:497]: t_lookup_request(): start searching:
>> hash=42311, isACK=1
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:439]: matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction
>> matched, tid=SG.ceb57d44-7388-4739-9a86-d44ea04d974d
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:692]: t_lookup_request(): transaction found
>> (T=0xffffa2f428a8)
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1122]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>> id=14/54 global id=14/54 T end=0xffffa2f428a8
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1763]: cleanup_uac_timers(): RETR/FR timers reset
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:120]: put_on_wait(): put T [0xffffa2f428a8] on
>> wait
>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/timer.c:557]: timer_add_safe(): timer_add called
>> on an active timer 0xffffa2f42930 (0xffffa2d05d08, 0xffffa2d05d08), flags 201
>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:143]: put_on_wait(): transaction 0xffffa2f428a8
>> already on wait
>>
>> However, in a scenario with an auth challenge with subsequent
>> INVITE+credentials, the same negative ACK is not matched to a known
>> transaction.
>>
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:389]: receive_msg(): --- received sip
>> message - request - call-id: [895a7051-3e0c-410a-88ea-4bad7a1c21b6] - cseq:
>> [939189 ACK]
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:261]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event
>> route core:pre-routing not defined
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:471]: receive_msg(): preparing to run
>> routing scripts...
>> 2(52) DEBUG: sl [sl_funcs.c:447]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late to be a local
>> ACK!
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_hname2.c:301]:
>> parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header name [Content-Length] type 12
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:187]: get_hdr_field():
>> content_length=0
>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:91]: get_hdr_field(): found
>> end of header
>> 2(52) DEBUG: maxfwd [mf_funcs.c:55]: is_maxfwd_present(): max_forwards
>> header not found!
>> 2(52) DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found
>> 2(52) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:108]: find_first_route(): No Route headers found
>> 2(52) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:1006]: loose_route_mode(): There is no Route HF
>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1053]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>> id=19/52 global id=18/52 T start=0
>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:497]: t_lookup_request(): start searching:
>> hash=21251, isACK=1
>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:455]: matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction
>> matching failed - via branch [z9hG4bKSG.c52861b7-2535-4080-84f5-2819c4169843]
>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:675]: t_lookup_request(): no transaction found
>>
>> This makes sense intuitively; the auth_challenge(), and resulting 407
>> challenge, should have ended the old transaction, so the negative ACK should
>> just be absorbed.
>>
>> But in that case, why does the 407 keep being retransmitted?
>>
>> -- Alex
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Henning,
>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Henning Westerholt <h...@gilawa.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>> it might not help you much, but recently I was implementing a similar
>>>> structure in one larger migration project, and it seems to work fine.
>>>> I am not using any special flags for the challenge etc..
>>>> It’s basically like this (pseudo-code)
>>>> route{
>>>> if no auth user -> auth_challenge()
>>>> else -> http_async_query(API, AUTH)
>>>> }
>>>> route[AUTH] {
>>>> get API result for password
>>>> if API failure -> auth_challenge()
>>>> else -> pv_auth_check(..)
>>>> route(next steps)
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's more or less what I've got, except the first part.
>>>
>>> I don't auth_challenge() every request because some requests are allowed by
>>> static IP, and I don't know whether to auth_challenge() them unless I am
>>> already in the async resume context.
>>>
>>> I have eliminated the independent credentials query. At this point my
>>> process is more:
>>>
>>> request_route {
>>> ...
>>>
>>> http_async_query(API, RESUME)
>>> }
>>>
>>> route[RESUME] {
>>> if(method == "INVITE") {
>>> if(has_auth_attrib()) {
>>> if(!pv_auth_check(...)) {
>>> auth_challenge("realm", "1");
>>> exit;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> # Get more routing info.
>>> http_async_query(API, RESUME2)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> route[RESUME2} {
>>> t_relay() etc
>>> }
>>>
>>> -- Alex
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>>
>>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>
>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-le...@lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
