Summary:	ASTERISK-04979: coredump in chan_zap.c (1.0.2)
Reporter:	raarts (raarts)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2005-09-04 16:59:13	Date Closed:	2011-06-07 14:00:43
Priority:	Critical	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Channels/chan_zap
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) zaptel-coredump.patch
Description:	asterisk segfaulted on a really low load in chan_zap, and I made a fix, but I don't have a clue if this fix is correct. I don't know if anyone fixed this coredump in later versions, but nobody touched this codeblock in any case. Can anyone with more insight into chan_zap please comment?
Comments:	By: Michael Jerris (mikej) 2005-09-04 17:03:39 do you mean that this is actually asterisk version 1.0.2?  what does show version say? By: raarts (raarts) 2005-09-04 17:15:00 Why don't I install 1.0.9 first? Well, this turned out to be too much work in this particular situation, for many reasons, the least of which being that it is running live, and a lot of people depend on it. And I checked the changelog, nothing indicates this bug has shown up, and been fixed. By: raarts (raarts) 2005-09-04 17:16:04 Asterisk 1.0.2-BRIstuffed-0.2.0-RC2 built by nnrelman@compile.office.netland.nl on a i686 running Linux By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-09-05 11:34:55 There are two serious problems with this report: 1) You specified 1.0.9 in the version field of the report even though you are not running 1.0.9.  You must try the latest code before submitting a bug report. 2) You are running a patched version of Asterisk.  You must verify that this is an issue with an *unpatched* version of Asterisk before placing your report. If you are able to clear up these issues, feel free to reopen this report. By: raarts (raarts) 2005-09-05 16:18:42 This answer really pisses me off because it is unreasonably harsh. Why? > 1) You specified 1.0.9 in the version field of the report even though you are > not running 1.0.9. You must try the latest code before submitting a bug > report. Well duh, there is no way to enter 1.0.2 in the form. So the first half of this sentence is unreasonable to ask. The second sentence I tried to explain in the report. > 2) You are running a patched version of Asterisk. You must verify that this > is an issue with an *unpatched* version of Asterisk before placing your > report. Well, I could always ask the manager of the 100-person callcenter that this asterisk version is running to move his operation to the USA, so he would not have to use bri-stuff. But I think he would think *me* being unreasonable. Above all this: I was only asking if someone could look at the line of code I added. A couple of lines of comment would probably have sufficed to get me on track to solve this problem myself. And do I deserve having my karma 2 points down for something like this? I'm trying to fix a crash. Thanks for modding me down. I know according to your views this issue should not have been reopened, because I was not able to clear the issues. So please feel free to close this issue, and if you are in a really forgiving mood, please have a chan_zap expert have a short look at my one-line patch, and point me in the right direction. thanks. By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-09-05 16:34:31 There is nothing harmful about your patch.  It will prevent the seg fault at that line.  However, the fact that you had this crash is an indication of a larger problem that this patch does not address. I'm sorry for coming off as harsh to you.  We have a ton of issues we have to sort through and very limited resources to manage them.  I'm sorry for the first comment.  I didn't realize that it was not a user editable field.  As for the karma, according to the karma guidelines established by those above me, submitting a bug report that occurs on a patched version of Asteirsk is supposed to be -4 karma.  I gave you the 2 points back because I realize that you are trying to help. Since you are running a patched version of Asterisk, there is not much we can do to help.  I recommend contacting the developers of BRIstuff.