[svn-commits] mmichelson: trunk r132795 - in /trunk: ./ channels/chan_sip.c
SVN commits to the Digium repositories
svn-commits at lists.digium.com
Tue Jul 22 17:17:10 CDT 2008
Author: mmichelson
Date: Tue Jul 22 17:17:09 2008
New Revision: 132795
URL: http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&rev=132795
Log:
Merged revisions 132777 via svnmerge from
https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk
........
r132777 | mmichelson | 2008-07-22 16:52:24 -0500 (Tue, 22 Jul 2008) | 3 lines
Get chan_dahdi to compile in devmode
........
Modified:
trunk/ (props changed)
trunk/channels/chan_sip.c
Propchange: trunk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svnmerge-integrated = /trunk:1-132781
Modified: trunk/channels/chan_sip.c
URL: http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/trunk/channels/chan_sip.c?view=diff&rev=132795&r1=132794&r2=132795
==============================================================================
--- trunk/channels/chan_sip.c (original)
+++ trunk/channels/chan_sip.c Tue Jul 22 17:17:09 2008
@@ -9144,7 +9144,7 @@
}
}
- if (!p->initreq.headers)
+ if (!p->initreq.headers || init > 2)
initialize_initreq(p, &req);
p->lastinvite = p->ocseq;
return send_request(p, &req, init ? XMIT_CRITICAL : XMIT_RELIABLE, p->ocseq);
@@ -16744,6 +16744,263 @@
return 0;
}
+/*! \brief helper routine for sip_uri_cmp
+ *
+ * This takes the parameters from two SIP URIs and determines
+ * if the URIs match. The rules for parameters *suck*. Here's a breakdown
+ * 1. If a parameter appears in both URIs, then they must have the same value
+ * in order for the URIs to match
+ * 2. If one URI has a user, maddr, ttl, or method parameter, then the other
+ * URI must also have that parameter and must have the same value
+ * in order for the URIs to match
+ * 3. All other headers appearing in only one URI are not considered when
+ * determining if URIs match
+ *
+ * \param input1 Parameters from URI 1
+ * \param input2 Parameters from URI 2
+ * \return Return 0 if the URIs' parameters match, 1 if they do not
+ */
+static int sip_uri_params_cmp(const char *input1, const char *input2)
+{
+ char *params1 = ast_strdupa(input1);
+ char *params2 = ast_strdupa(input2);
+ char *pos1;
+ char *pos2;
+ int maddrmatch = 0;
+ int ttlmatch = 0;
+ int usermatch = 0;
+ int methodmatch = 0;
+
+ /*Quick optimization. If both params are zero-length, then
+ * they match
+ */
+ if (ast_strlen_zero(params1) && ast_strlen_zero(params2)) {
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ pos1 = params1;
+ while (!ast_strlen_zero(pos1)) {
+ char *name1 = pos1;
+ char *value1 = strchr(pos1, '=');
+ char *semicolon1 = strchr(pos1, ';');
+ int matched = 0;
+ if (semicolon1) {
+ *semicolon1++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if (!value1) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ *value1++ = '\0';
+ /* Checkpoint reached. We have the name and value parsed for param1
+ * We have to duplicate params2 each time through the second loop
+ * or else we can't search and replace the semicolons with \0 each
+ * time
+ */
+ pos2 = ast_strdupa(params2);
+ while (!ast_strlen_zero(pos2)) {
+ char *name2 = pos2;
+ char *value2 = strchr(pos2, '=');
+ char *semicolon2 = strchr(pos2, ';');
+ if (semicolon2) {
+ *semicolon2++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if (!value2) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ if (!strcasecmp(name1, name2)) {
+ if (strcasecmp(value1, value2)) {
+ goto fail;
+ } else {
+ matched = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ pos2 = semicolon2;
+ }
+ /* Need to see if the parameter we're looking at is one of the 'must-match' parameters */
+ if (!strcasecmp(name1, "maddr")) {
+ if (matched) {
+ maddrmatch = 1;
+ } else {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ } else if (!strcasecmp(name1, "ttl")) {
+ if (matched) {
+ ttlmatch = 1;
+ } else {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ } else if (!strcasecmp(name1, "user")) {
+ if (matched) {
+ usermatch = 1;
+ } else {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ } else if (!strcasecmp(name1, "method")) {
+ if (matched) {
+ methodmatch = 1;
+ } else {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ }
+ pos1 = semicolon1;
+ }
+
+ /* We've made it out of that horrible O(m*n) construct and there are no
+ * failures yet. We're not done yet, though, because params2 could have
+ * an maddr, ttl, user, or method header and params1 did not.
+ */
+ pos2 = params2;
+ while (!ast_strlen_zero(pos2)) {
+ char *name2 = pos2;
+ char *value2 = strchr(pos2, '=');
+ char *semicolon2 = strchr(pos2, ';');
+ if (semicolon2) {
+ *semicolon2++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if (!value2) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ if ((!strcasecmp(name2, "maddr") && !maddrmatch) ||
+ (!strcasecmp(name2, "ttl") && !ttlmatch) ||
+ (!strcasecmp(name2, "user") && !usermatch) ||
+ (!strcasecmp(name2, "method") && !methodmatch)) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+
+fail:
+ return 1;
+}
+
+/*! \brief helper routine for sip_uri_cmp
+ *
+ * This takes the "headers" from two SIP URIs and determines
+ * if the URIs match. The rules for headers is simple. If a header
+ * appears in one URI, then it must also appear in the other URI. The
+ * order in which the headers appear does not matter.
+ *
+ * \param input1 Headers from URI 1
+ * \param input2 Headers from URI 2
+ * \return Return 0 if the URIs' headers match, 1 if they do not
+ */
+static int sip_uri_headers_cmp(const char *input1, const char *input2)
+{
+ char *headers1 = ast_strdupa(input1);
+ char *headers2 = ast_strdupa(input2);
+ int zerolength1 = ast_strlen_zero(headers1);
+ int zerolength2 = ast_strlen_zero(headers2);
+ int different = 0;
+ char *header1;
+
+ if ((zerolength1 && !zerolength2) ||
+ (zerolength2 && !zerolength1))
+ return 1;
+
+ if (zerolength1 && zerolength2)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* At this point, we can definitively state that both inputs are
+ * not zero-length. First, one more optimization. If the length
+ * of the headers is not equal, then we definitely have no match
+ */
+ if (strlen(headers1) != strlen(headers2)) {
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ for (header1 = strsep(&headers1, "&"); header1; header1 = strsep(&headers1, "&")) {
+ if (!strcasestr(headers2, header1)) {
+ different = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return different;
+}
+
+static int sip_uri_cmp(const char *input1, const char *input2)
+{
+ char *uri1 = ast_strdupa(input1);
+ char *uri2 = ast_strdupa(input2);
+ char *host1;
+ char *host2;
+ char *params1;
+ char *params2;
+ char *headers1;
+ char *headers2;
+
+ /* Strip off "sip:" from the URI. We know this is present
+ * because it was checked back in parse_request()
+ */
+ strsep(&uri1, ":");
+ strsep(&uri2, ":");
+
+ if ((host1 = strchr(uri1, '@'))) {
+ *host1++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if ((host2 = strchr(uri2, '@'))) {
+ *host2++ = '\0';
+ }
+
+ /* Check for mismatched username and passwords. This is the
+ * only case-sensitive comparison of a SIP URI
+ */
+ if ((host1 && !host2) ||
+ (host2 && !host1) ||
+ (host1 && host2 && strcmp(uri1, uri2))) {
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ if (!host1)
+ host1 = uri1;
+ if (!host2)
+ host2 = uri2;
+
+ /* Strip off the parameters and headers so we can compare
+ * host and port
+ */
+
+ if ((params1 = strchr(host1, ';'))) {
+ *params1++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if ((params2 = strchr(host2, ';'))) {
+ *params2++ = '\0';
+ }
+
+ /* Headers come after parameters, but there may be headers without
+ * parameters, thus the S_OR
+ */
+ if ((headers1 = strchr(S_OR(params1, host1), '?'))) {
+ *headers1++ = '\0';
+ }
+ if ((headers2 = strchr(S_OR(params2, host2), '?'))) {
+ *headers2++ = '\0';
+ }
+
+ /* Now the host/port are properly isolated. We can get by with a string comparison
+ * because the SIP URI checking rules have some interesting exceptions that make
+ * this possible. I will note 2 in particular
+ * 1. hostnames which resolve to the same IP address as well as a hostname and its
+ * IP address are not considered a match with SIP URI's.
+ * 2. If one URI specifies a port and the other does not, then the URIs do not match.
+ * This includes if one URI explicitly contains port 5060 and the other implies it
+ * by not having a port specified.
+ */
+
+ if (strcasecmp(host1, host2)) {
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ /* Headers have easier rules to follow, so do those first */
+ if (sip_uri_headers_cmp(headers1, headers2)) {
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ /* And now the parameters. Ugh */
+ return sip_uri_params_cmp(params1, params2);
+}
+
/*! \brief Handle incoming INVITE request
\note If the INVITE has a Replaces header, it is part of an
@@ -16807,10 +17064,44 @@
being able to call yourself */
/* If pedantic is on, we need to check the tags. If they're different, this is
in fact a forked call through a SIP proxy somewhere. */
- transmit_response_reliable(p, "482 Loop Detected", req);
- p->invitestate = INV_COMPLETED;
- sip_scheddestroy(p, DEFAULT_TRANS_TIMEOUT);
- return 0;
+ int different;
+ if (pedanticsipchecking)
+ different = sip_uri_cmp(p->initreq.rlPart2, req->rlPart2);
+ else
+ different = strcmp(p->initreq.rlPart2, req->rlPart2);
+ if (!different) {
+ transmit_response(p, "482 Loop Detected", req);
+ p->invitestate = INV_COMPLETED;
+ sip_scheddestroy(p, DEFAULT_TRANS_TIMEOUT);
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ /* This is a spiral. What we need to do is to just change the outgoing INVITE
+ * so that it now routes to the new Request URI. Since we created the INVITE ourselves
+ * that should be all we need to do.
+ */
+ char *uri = ast_strdupa(req->rlPart2);
+ char *at = strchr(uri, '@');
+ char *peerorhost;
+ struct sip_pkt *pkt = NULL;
+ if (option_debug > 2) {
+ ast_log(LOG_DEBUG, "Potential spiral detected. Original RURI was %s, new RURI is %s\n", p->initreq.rlPart2, req->rlPart2);
+ }
+ if (at) {
+ *at = '\0';
+ }
+ /* Parse out "sip:" */
+ if ((peerorhost = strchr(uri, ':'))) {
+ *peerorhost++ = '\0';
+ }
+ create_addr(p, peerorhost, NULL);
+ ast_string_field_set(p, theirtag, NULL);
+ for (pkt = p->packets; pkt; pkt = pkt->next) {
+ if (pkt->seqno == p->icseq && pkt->method == SIP_INVITE) {
+ AST_SCHED_DEL(sched, pkt->retransid);
+ }
+ }
+ return transmit_invite(p, SIP_INVITE, 1, 3);
+ }
}
if (!req->ignore && p->pendinginvite) {
More information about the svn-commits
mailing list