You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When relaying this 200 OK repeatedly with calls to rtpengine_answer() failing because all RTPEngines in a set are unreachable...
Dec 8 06:24:38 gw kamailio[4823]: ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2960]: select_rtpp_node(): rtpengine failed to select new for calllen=36 callid=8279a4ea-151e-48de-a23c-5840104126de
I have seen this crash from time to time, though it is infrequent. It always seems to occur when there are problems reaching RTPEngine in a timely fashion.
This is on Kamailio 5.2.4:de9a03, which I know has long fallen off the back of the maintenance train. However, line 1386 of t_reply.c in master:HEAD shows that the code is no different now:
Of course, it's possible that something upstream has changed so as to prevent this state. Otherwise, I suppose a null pointer safety check for Trans->uac is recommended. I'd be happy to submit a patch, just wasn't sure if the feeling was more that this should be resolved higher up the call stack.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When relaying this
200 OK
repeatedly with calls tortpengine_answer()
failing because all RTPEngines in a set are unreachable...Repeat INVITEs eventually result in a crash. This backtrace is taken from a different server but identical scenario:
Looks like in the crash frame,
Trans->uac
isNULL
:I have seen this crash from time to time, though it is infrequent. It always seems to occur when there are problems reaching RTPEngine in a timely fashion.
This is on Kamailio 5.2.4:de9a03, which I know has long fallen off the back of the maintenance train. However, line 1386 of
t_reply.c
inmaster:HEAD
shows that the code is no different now:https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/src/modules/tm/t_reply.c#L1386
Of course, it's possible that something upstream has changed so as to prevent this state. Otherwise, I suppose a null pointer safety check for
Trans->uac
is recommended. I'd be happy to submit a patch, just wasn't sure if the feeling was more that this should be resolved higher up the call stack.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: