- OpenBSC - lists.osmocom.org

Re: AW: patches again
by Dieter Spaar 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Hello Andreas, On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:37:51 +0200, "Andreas.Eversberg" <Andreas.Eversberg(a)versatel.de> wrote: > > this was the problem. finally got the measurement reports (--debug > ....:DMEAS). you just need to add to misdn.c: > > case DL_UNITDATA_IND: > > and everything is fine. Great, so this is solved. I noticed one minor problem, its the meaning of the MEAS-VALID flag. The spec says that "0" means "valid" and "1" is "not valid". So if (!(meas_rep.flags & MEAS_REP_F_VALID)) should be changed or the parsing of the measurement result where this flag is set. Best regards, Dieter -- Dieter Spaar, Germany spaar(a)mirider.augusta.de

2 1

updated wireshark patches / call for help
by Harald Welte 04 Jul '09

04 Jul '09

Hi! I've just committed some recent improvements of the Abis dissection of wireshark to git. There's some initial work on a 12.21 OML decoder in epan/dissectors/packet-abis_oml.c. It will happily decode the common FOM header and tell you the name of the message as well as list all attributes in it. It does not yet understand details on how to parse all the various attributes. If anyone wants to make himself familiar with this part of GSM, get a copy of 12.21, look at OpenBSC or protocol traces and add more of that attribute parsing code! The A-bis/IP dissector has only been improved slightly. If you apply abisip.patch and abis_oml.patch to current wireshark svn, you will be able to decode 94-99% of what you see in any capture between OpenBSC and a nanoBTS. I currently don't have access to a BS-11, so I cannot test the wireshark code with it. In case somebody wants to send me some pcap files of BS-11 traces, either by using the openbsc pcap option or by tracing it through mISDN, I'm more than happy to make sure that it works on thos traces, too. Testing as well as contributed patches are also always welcome! Thanks, -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

2 2

Patch 39: WAS: Re: patches again
by Holger Freyther 04 Jul '09

04 Jul '09

On Sunday 28 June 2009 18:47:31 Andreas.Eversberg wrote: > patch 39: the location update process did not work, if mobile station > uses tmsi when comming from a different network. in this case the > reject-timer must also be started, and we wait for imsi identity > response. in case we can't find the subscriber or if we have an > unimplemented location update, we release location update process and > send a reject. Sorry, to me it seems the patch is doing something else... 1.) if (!subscr) { DEBUGPC(DRR, "<- Can't find any subscriber for this ID\n"); /* FIXME: request id? close channel? */ + release_loc_updating_req(lchan); + gsm0408_loc_upd_rej(lchan, reject_cause); return -EINVAL; } I think we can just move the schedule_reject from two lines below the if to the top. What do you think? 2.) The patch changes the policy from delayed reject (to not make the MS come back immediately) to a direct one. What is the reasoning?

2 1

patches again
by Andreas.Eversberg 04 Jul '09

04 Jul '09

hi, i did some heavy tests this weekend with many mobile stations at once. with these patches all ressources (channels / subscribers) were released cleanly. even when mobile stations request more than 4 channels at a time (the current SDCCH4 is full), there is no ressource getting stuck anymore. patch 39: the location update process did not work, if mobile station uses tmsi when comming from a different network. in this case the reject-timer must also be started, and we wait for imsi identity response. in case we can't find the subscriber or if we have an unimplemented location update, we release location update process and send a reject. patch 40: in case of a channel breakdown, the signal handler for releasing lchan is called. the wrong pointer was used as lchan. (see last hunk) also we don't need to check use counter of lchan, if we receive an "cause 22 error". the lchan gets released anyway, if use counter becomes 0. (see first hunk). also i think we can force channel release when we receive an error indication. this can easily be tested: remove the battery during active call, then send a message to the mobile station (hang up on the remote). the message cannot be delivered, so the BTS send us an error indication, the channels and the call process gets released. patch 41: the pointer "tall_bsc_ctx" belongs to the gsm_data.c file, not to include file. patch 42: again my traffic channel patch. the mobile requests a channel. in case of a location update, we deliver the requested channel type. if we receive a channel request for other reasons, i force a TCH_F channel. this is requied, because we cannot change (modify) the channel right now. also i check if we have a TCH_F channel when we want to make a call to the mobile. if so, the channel is used, if not, paging is stated as if we would have no channel. so it is possible to call a mobile during location update, when it holds not a TCH_F channel. patch 43: this small fix will not check for given subscriber/imsi here. this is already done in the next "if"-condition. patch 38: still i use this little hacked install patch to install library and include files, so other applications like LCR can use openbsc without refering to the openbsc source directory. i use that install-hook, because i don't know much about autoconf. maybe there is a better way to do that. anyway i don't get any measurement reports at all. i tried two BTS' and used the firmware as described in the wiki. regards, andreas

3 7

AW: patches again
by Andreas.Eversberg 04 Jul '09

04 Jul '09

> UI frames should be reported to userspace as DL_UNITDATA_IND rather than DL_DATA_IND. openbsc/input/misdn.c currently doesn't support DL_UNITDATA_IND in the switch statement of handle_ts1_read. That sounds like the most likely cause. hi harald, this was the problem. finally got the measurement reports (--debug ....:DMEAS). you just need to add to misdn.c: case DL_UNITDATA_IND: and everything is fine. regards, andreas

2 1

ipaccess-config: nanoBTS NVRAM flags support
by Harald Welte 03 Jul '09

03 Jul '09

Hi! ipaccess-config can now set the nanoBTS NVRAM flags. It has the following syntax: ipaccess-config <IP-addr> -n flags/mask so e.g. > ipaccess-config 1.2.3.4 -n 0x400/0x400 will set bit number 10 in NVRAM, whereas > ipaccess-config 1.2.3.4 -n 0x000/0x400 will clear that very bit. A list of known bits that you can set: 0 Static Interface IP configuration 1 Static IP Gateway configuration 8 Secondary OML enable (incoming TCP port 3006) 10 CLI enable (command line interface on serial port) 11 HTTP enable (https server on TCP port 443) 13 SNMP enable If somebody wants to add a '--help' message to ipaccess-config, patches are always welcome. Cheers, -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

1 0

Abis 12.21 OML plugin for wireshark
by Harald Welte 03 Jul '09

03 Jul '09

Hi all! As some of you might have seen from the various git commit messages, I spent quite a bit of time to implement a GSM 12.21 (A-bis OML) plugin for wireshark from scratch. It's available in our git repository at /wireshark/abis_oml.patch My main focus has been the parsing of the ip.access vendor-specific extensions to 12.21, as that part is much harder than just implementing what's written in TS 12.21 itself. One of the things that it can now decode is decoding of the 'network listen' functionality implemented as 12.21 'perform test'. Using this, you can scan over all ARFCN and report the rx level (good for determining an unused channel at your current location), or you can actually decode the BCCH information of all cells in your vicinity. This is just the wireshark plugin. I did not write any FOSS code for actually starting those tests, you still need some non-free software for that. However, looking at the pcap file I sent some time ago and at this wireshark plugin, anyone interested should be able to implement this very quickly, maybe as an addition to ipaccess-config. Due to my current lack of access to BS-11 hardware, the plugin was not yet tested against it. If anyone can do some testing in this regard, it would be much appreciated. Alternatively, if somebody can send me some BS11 pcap files (maybe just of OpenBSC starting up), I can make sure to fix it. I'm planning to do some more work regarding cleanup and feature-completeness of the plugin before submitting it mainline to wireshark. However, the Abis-IP plugin should be quite complete and I'll plan to submit it really soon now. Regards, -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

1 0

AW: Patch 39: WAS: Re: patches again
by Andreas.Eversberg 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

> I think we can just move the schedule_reject from two lines below the if to the top. What do you think? > 2.) The patch changes the policy from delayed reject (to not make the MS come > back immediately) to a direct one. What is the reasoning? hi holger, 1. just move it to the top. 2. you are right. only we need to restart the timer and exit, on location update with TMSI. also i was concerned about loosing link to mobile. in this case we get a timeout, so only the first 3 lines make sense. anyway i will test it and see if i missed to explain an importaint reason. regards, andreas

1 0

AW: MSC split out progress
by Andreas.Eversberg 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

> One thing that keeps me from pushing (after having tested) is the following observation. For going from layer3 to layer4 we currently have a queue, for my patches when going from layer2 to layer3 I have a direct callback. Should I change that to use the same queuing approach? hi holger, for me it is very hard to explain, but i will try... - bsc = lower layer (signalling) - msc = upper layer (application) actually we need a queue in only one direction, if we link two finite state machines. (or in our case link two instances of transactions using mncc.c). during an bsc-event, when a message from bsc is sent to msc, the bsc might do some processing right after sending the message. without a queue, the msc could reply directly to that message (with a function call to msc) which may change the state machine of bsc, while bsc is still processing the first event... (race condition) an up-queue from bsc to msc will fix that problem. msc will only process messages, if bsc has finished it's processing of events. in case of a message from msc to bsc, we also don't have that problem, even without a queue. if msc sends a message directly down to bsc (using a function call), an eventually direct reply is queued in the up-queue, so msc can finish processing the first event before processing the message in the up-queue. it does not matter if the queue is for messages from bsc to msc, or from msc to bsc, but at least we need one queue. it may happen that a message is dequeued, but the call instance is already gone. in this case the other layer (bsc or msc) should ignore it. this is why the call reference is used instead of a memory pointer. also it must be unique all the (run-)time. regards, andreas

1 0

AW: abnormal channel release WAS: Re: patches again
by Andreas.Eversberg 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

hi holger, i can do that soon. part 3 just removes the if-condition. i missed to remove it after testing. i will fix it in the forthcomming splitted patches. regards, andreas > Okay. As stupid as it might sound please split that into three patches. > 1.) Fixing my stupidity in gsm0408_handle_lchan_signal!!! sorry for making you suffer from it and thanks for fixing it. > 2.) static int rsl_rx_rll_err_ind(struct msgb *msg) > 3.) Explain why > +// if (msg->lchan->use_count > 0) { > +// } > is a good change and should be applied?

1 0