< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

Re: [reSIProcate-users] TransactionState crash


That's very little information to go on, but my gut feel is that the app is trying to delete the same object twice. Try running in valgrind or electric fence -- or link against a debug malloc library.

(Is there any reason you can't upgrade to a more recent version of resip?)

/a

Krister Jarl wrote:
Hi!

I've been experiencing some strange crashes.

#1  0x08307059 in resip::TransactionState::processClientStale
(this=0x45131f78, msg=0x45c787a8) at TransactionState.cxx:1282
#2  0x0830c023 in resip::TransactionState::process
(controller=@0x9fc55eec) at TransactionState.cxx:266
#3  0x082ffeda in resip::TransactionController::process
(this=0x9fc55eec, fdset=@0x9f2fe010) at TransactionController.cxx:83
#4  0x082f455f in resip::SipStack::process (this=0x9fc32368,
fdset=@0x9f2fe010) at SipStack.cxx:508

And:

#0  0x000003b9 in ?? ()
#1  0x082ef1d0 in ~SipMessage (this=0xca6a8b0) at SipMessage.cxx:172
#2  0x0830ab87 in ~TransactionState (this=0xa698d1c0) at
TransactionState.cxx:120
#3  0x08307059 in resip::TransactionState::processClientStale
(this=0xa698d1c0, msg=0xcf14ad0) at TransactionState.cxx:1282
#4  0x0830c023 in resip::TransactionState::process
(controller=@0xaa923b9c) at TransactionState.cxx:266
#5  0x082ffeda in resip::TransactionController::process
(this=0xaa923b9c, fdset=@0xa9ffe010) at TransactionController.cxx:83
#6  0x082f455f in resip::SipStack::process (this=0xaa900018,
fdset=@0xa9ffe010) at SipStack.cxx:508

I'm afraid I haven't got any reciprocate logs for you guys to look at,
but I hope the stack trace helps. The scenario for this to happen, at
least for the first trace, follows:

(from my UA's perspective)
INVITE -->
<-- 100
<-- 183
<-- 200
ACK -->
<-- BYE
--> 200
Crash

The crash occurs when TimerStaleClient fires, 32 s after 200 is
received.
I'm running reciprocate version 1.2 (yes, I know it's old :-))

Any ideas? Is there any way that I might be using the API wrong to get
this? I might add that this behaviour is not seen for all scenarios like
the above.

Regards,
Krister
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-users mailing list
resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/