[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] Don't overwrite non-REGISTER initial request with incoming REGISTER

[David Vossel]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1050/#review3009
-----------------------------------------------------------



/branches/1.4/channels/chan_sip.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1050/#comment6224>

    This looks correct.  It might be nice to have a warning message here indicating if this occurs. I couldn't imagine this ever happening, so it would be good to know if it did.


- David


On 2010-12-08 17:46:13, Terry Wilson wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1050/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-12-08 17:46:13)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> If a REGISTER request is sent in the middle of an existing non-REGISTER transaction, copy_req() overwrites p->initreq with the incoming REGISTER request instead of ignoring the invalid request. This patch ignores non-initial REGISTER requests when initreq.method != REGISTER.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /branches/1.4/channels/chan_sip.c 294820 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1050/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested with sipp that the REGISTER is ignored when it should be, and that normal REGISTERs still work.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Terry
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20101209/890feafe/attachment-0001.htm