Merged revisions 301946 via svnmerge from
authorRichard Mudgett <rmudgett@digium.com>
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:13:08 +0000 (21:13 +0000)
committerRichard Mudgett <rmudgett@digium.com>
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:13:08 +0000 (21:13 +0000)
https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/1.8

........
  r301946 | rmudgett | 2011-01-14 15:09:57 -0600 (Fri, 14 Jan 2011) | 13 lines

  Deadlock between dahdi_request() and pri_dchannel() processing an incomming call.

  The sig_pri_new_ast_channel() is called with the channel private lock held
  when pri_dchannel() calls it and no channel private lock held when
  dahdi_request() calls it.  The use of pri_grab() in
  sig_pri_new_ast_channel() could leave the channel private lock held when
  it returns if the lock was not held before calling it.

  Make sig_pri_new_ast_channel() just lock the PRI span lock instead of
  using pri_grab().  It is safe to do this because dahdi_request() does not
  have the channel private lock and the deadlock potential with the PRI span
  lock is only between pri_dchannel() and other threads.
........

git-svn-id: https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk@301947 65c4cc65-6c06-0410-ace0-fbb531ad65f3

channels/sig_pri.c

index cbfe5b0..a858ef2 100644 (file)
@@ -880,11 +880,10 @@ static struct ast_channel *sig_pri_new_ast_channel(struct sig_pri_chan *p, int s
        if (transfercapability & AST_TRANS_CAP_DIGITAL) {
                sig_pri_set_digital(p, 1);
        }
-       if (p->pri && !pri_grab(p, p->pri)) {
+       if (p->pri) {
+               ast_mutex_lock(&p->pri->lock);
                sig_pri_span_devstate_changed(p->pri);
-               pri_rel(p->pri);
-       } else {
-               ast_log(LOG_WARNING, "Failed to grab PRI!\n");
+               ast_mutex_unlock(&p->pri->lock);
        }
 
        return c;