Hello,
ok, thanks for providng the feedback, it is good to know that was
something already fixed.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 24/09/15 12:20, Jack Wang wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Sorry for my late reply at first.
>
> I took your suggestion and update Kamailio from 4.2.3 to 4.2.6,
> then test again,
> it does
Hi Daniel,
Sorry for my late reply at first.
I took your suggestion and update Kamailio from 4.2.3 to 4.2.6,
then test again,
it does't crash now ! :D
Thank you very much!
2015-09-08 15:03 GMT+08:00 Daniel-Constantin Mierla :
> Hello,
>
> the first frames of the backtrace don't have the symbol
Hello,
the first frames of the backtrace don't have the symbol table, do have
other core files from where you can extract the bt full?
Also, 4.2.3 is old in its series, newer versions in branch 4.2 were
released. Can you update the latest version in branch 4.2 and reproduce
again? That will rule
Hello,
can you give the exact version: kamailio -v?
Also, the log message indicates that a core file was generated, sent the
backtrace taken from gdb:
gdb /path/to/kamailio /path/to/corefile
bt full
Could you reproduce the issue, or did it happen only once?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03/09/15 04:50, J
Hello,
the crash is different, no longer the one in dialog that was fixed --
now it is inside corex module, at corex_nio.c line 411.
I checked the source code and that line doesn't exist in 4.2 or master
branches. I guess you have custom development done to corex module --
check your code there.
Hello Daniel,
I upgraded to latest version -
[root@h5-152-217-138 /]# kamailio -v
version: kamailio 4.2.1 (x86_64/linux) 868a34
flags: STATS: Off, USE_TCP, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST,
DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, DBG_F_MALLOC,
USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WA
Hello,
upgrade to use the latest stable version from 4.2 branch, respectively
4.2.1 at this time -- you are running a pre-release version, which was
not supposed to be ready for production anyhow, and there was a fix to
this issue already.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 28/11/14 19:59, Rahul MathuR wrote:
>
