RDKB-60656 : Available memory check for firmware downloads by bunnam988 · Pull Request #178 · rdkcentral/provisioning-and-management

bunnam988 · 2026-01-21T11:50:55Z

RDKB-60656 : Available memory check for firmware downloads

Reason for change: Before firmware download, we need to check if the device have enough memory
Test Procedure: 1. while firmware download, available memory check logs should be seen.
2. If available memory < required memory, firmware download should not start.
Risks: medium
Priority: P1

Gerrit meta-layer changes:
https://gerrit.teamccp.com/#/q/topic:RDKB-60656+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
List all dependent GitHub PRs:
rdkcentral/xconf-client#13
rdkcentral/utopia#182
rdkcentral/cable-modem-agent#23
rdkcentral/miscellaneous-broadband#37
https://github.com/rdk-gdcs/apparmor-profiles/pull/49

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds a memory availability check before firmware downloads to prevent download failures due to insufficient memory. Two new TR-181 parameters are introduced to configure memory thresholds, and a pre-download validation function is called to verify adequate memory is available.

Changes:

Added two new TR-181 parameters for configuring firmware download memory thresholds (AvlMem_RsrvThreshold and ImageProcMemPercent)
Integrated memory check before firmware download by calling can_proceed_fw_download()
Implemented getter and setter functions for the new configuration parameters using syscfg storage

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

File	Description
config-arm/TR181-USGv2.XML	Defines two new unsignedInt parameters for firmware download memory configuration
source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c	Implements getter and setter functions for the new memory threshold parameters
source-arm/TR-181/board_sbapi/cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c	Adds memory check before firmware download and includes fw_download_check.h header

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:37Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)
+    {
+      if (syscfg_set_u_commit (NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", uValue) != 0) {
+        return FALSE;
+      }
+        return TRUE;
+    }


There is no input validation for the uValue parameter. Consider adding validation to ensure the value is within a reasonable range. For ImageProcMemPercent, values should likely be in the range 0-100 if this represents a percentage. Without validation, invalid values could cause unexpected behavior in the firmware download memory check.

config-arm/TR181-USGv2.XML

source-arm/TR-181/board_sbapi/cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:38Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);
+        return TRUE;
+    }
+
+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)
+    {
+        char buf[10]= {0};
+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);


The syscfg_get return value should be checked for errors. Most other syscfg_get calls in this file check the return value and handle errors appropriately. If syscfg_get fails, the buffer may contain garbage data, and atoi will return an unpredictable value. Consider checking the return value and either returning FALSE or setting a default value when syscfg_get fails.

Suggested change

syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));

*puLong = atoi(buf);

return TRUE;

}

if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)

{

char buf[10]= {0};

syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf));

*puLong = atoi(buf);

if (syscfg_get(NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf)) != 0 || buf[0] == '\0')

{

/* On failure or empty value, default to 0 */

*puLong = 0;

}

else

{

*puLong = (ULONG)atoi(buf);

}

return TRUE;

}

if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)

{

char buf[10]= {0};

if (syscfg_get(NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf)) != 0 || buf[0] == '\0')

{

/* On failure or empty value, default to 0 */

*puLong = 0;

}

else

{

*puLong = (ULONG)atoi(buf);

}

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:38Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+	if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold") == 0)
+    {
+      if (syscfg_set_u_commit (NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", uValue) != 0) {
+        return FALSE;
+      }
+        return TRUE;
+    }


The indentation is inconsistent in this block. The opening brace should be indented consistently with the surrounding code, and the return statement should be indented properly. Compare with the similar code block at lines 1431-1437 which has the same indentation issue.

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:38Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)
+    {
+      if (syscfg_set_u_commit (NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", uValue) != 0) {
+        return FALSE;
+      }
+        return TRUE;
+    }


The indentation is inconsistent in this block. The return statement should be aligned with the if statement rather than the code inside the if block. This inconsistency also exists in the previous block at lines 1423-1429.

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:39Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);
+        return TRUE;
+    }
+
+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)
+    {
+        char buf[10]= {0};
+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);


The syscfg_get return value should be checked for errors. Most other syscfg_get calls in this file check the return value and handle errors appropriately. If syscfg_get fails, the buffer may contain garbage data, and atoi will return an unpredictable value. Consider checking the return value and either returning FALSE or setting a default value when syscfg_get fails.

Suggested change

syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));

*puLong = atoi(buf);

return TRUE;

}

if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)

{

char buf[10]= {0};

syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf));

*puLong = atoi(buf);

if (syscfg_get(NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf)) == 0)

{

*puLong = atoi(buf);

}

else

{

/* Default to 0 if syscfg_get fails */

*puLong = 0;

}

return TRUE;

}

if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)

{

char buf[10]= {0};

if (syscfg_get(NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf)) == 0)

{

*puLong = atoi(buf);

}

else

{

/* Default to 0 if syscfg_get fails */

*puLong = 0;

}

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:39Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold") == 0)
+    {
+        char buf[10]= {0};
+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);
+        return TRUE;
+    }
+
+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent") == 0)
+    {
+        char buf[10]= {0};
+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);
+        return TRUE;


The new parameters X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold and X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_ImageProcMemPercent lack test coverage. The repository has existing tests for similar DeviceInfo parameter getters and setters (see source/test/cosa_deviceinfo_dml_custom_test.cpp). Consider adding tests to verify the get and set functionality for these new parameters, including edge cases like syscfg_get failures.

Copilot · 2026-01-21T11:56:39Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+	if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold") == 0)
+    {
+      if (syscfg_set_u_commit (NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", uValue) != 0) {
+        return FALSE;
+      }
+        return TRUE;
+    }


There is no input validation for the uValue parameter. Consider adding validation to ensure the value is within a reasonable range. For example, if these values represent memory thresholds in MB or percentages, you should validate that they don't exceed system limits or are within expected ranges (e.g., 0-100 for percentages). Without validation, invalid values could cause unexpected behavior in the firmware download memory check.

apattu200

Looks ok for me.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-02-02T18:10:07Z

source-arm/TR-181/board_sbapi/Makefile.am

+libCcspPandM_board_sbapi_la_LDFLAGS = -lccsp_common -ltime_conversion -lwebconfig_framework -lmsgpackc -lfw_download_chk
 if FEATURE_HOTSPOT_SUPPORT
 libCcspPandM_board_sbapi_la_LDFLAGS += -lHotspotApi
 endif


libCcspPandM_board_sbapi_la_LDFLAGS is being assigned with = here, which overwrites any earlier conditional += additions (e.g., -lrdkconfig from IS_LIBRDKCONFIG_ENABLED and -lnet from CORE_NET_LIB_FEATURE_SUPPORT just above). This will silently drop those link dependencies in configurations where they’re enabled. Consolidate into a single base assignment and only use += afterwards, or change this to += -lfw_download_chk instead of reassigning the whole variable.

Copilot · 2026-02-02T18:10:07Z

source/TR-181/middle_layer_src/cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

+    if (strcmp(ParamName, "X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold") == 0)
+    {
+        char buf[10]= {0};
+        syscfg_get( NULL, "FwDwld_AvlMem_RsrvThreshold", buf, sizeof(buf));
+        *puLong = atoi(buf);
+        return TRUE;


The syscfg value is read into char buf[10], which is too small for a uint32 string representation (needs up to 10 digits + NUL). This can truncate the stored value and atoi() will then return the wrong number. Increase the buffer (e.g., 12+) and prefer strtoul with proper error checking instead of atoi (which returns int and can overflow).

Copilot · 2026-02-02T18:10:08Z

source-arm/TR-181/board_sbapi/cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c

 #include "cosa_drg_common.h"
 #include "safec_lib_common.h"
 #include "ansc_string_util.h"
+#include "fw_download_check.h"


fw_download_check.h is not present anywhere in this repo, so this include will fail unless the build environment provides it via an external -I path/package. Please add the header to the repo (or ensure it’s exported by a declared dependency and included via the correct include path), and update the build system accordingly so local builds don’t break.

Suggested change

#include "fw_download_check.h"

RDKB-60656 : Available memory check for firmware downloads Reason for change: Before firmware download, we need to check if the device have enough memory Test Procedure: 1. while firmware download, available memory check logs should be seen. 2. If available memory < required memory, firmware download should not start. Risks: medium Priority: P1 **Gerrit meta-layer changes:** https://gerrit.teamccp.com/#/q/topic:RDKB-60656+(status:open+OR+status:merged) **List all dependent GitHub PRs:** rdkcentral/provisioning-and-management#178 rdkcentral/utopia#182 rdkcentral/cable-modem-agent#23 rdkcentral/miscellaneous-broadband#37 https://github.com/rdk-gdcs/apparmor-profiles/pull/49

RDKB-60656 : Available memory check for firmware downloads Reason for change: Before firmware download, we need to check if the device have enough memory Test Procedure: 1. while firmware download, available memory check logs should be seen. 2. If available memory < required memory, firmware download should not start. Risks: medium Priority: P1 **Gerrit meta-layer changes:** https://gerrit.teamccp.com/#/q/topic:RDKB-60656+(status:open+OR+status:merged) **List all dependent GitHub PRs:** rdkcentral/xconf-client#13 rdkcentral/provisioning-and-management#178 rdkcentral/cable-modem-agent#23 rdkcentral/miscellaneous-broadband#37 https://github.com/rdk-gdcs/apparmor-profiles/pull/49

bunnam988 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 21, 2026 11:50

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 11:50

bunnam988 force-pushed the feature/RDKB-60656 branch from c18420c to 8f85a4d Compare January 21, 2026 11:51

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of bunnam988 January 21, 2026 11:51 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

apattu200 reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 2, 2026 18:05

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of bunnam988 February 2, 2026 18:06 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

bunnam988 added 7 commits February 11, 2026 09:16

Update cosa_deviceinfo_dml.c

098f630

Update TR181-USGv2.XML

5a93dff

Update cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c

4ce3a7c

Update cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c

ca27857

removed the function from here

a197802

Update Makefile.am

0ee0524

Update cosa_deviceinfo_apis.c

f06296b

bunnam988 force-pushed the feature/RDKB-60656 branch from eda0c29 to f06296b Compare February 11, 2026 03:46

apattu200 approved these changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

bunnam988 merged commit 1235d26 into develop Feb 11, 2026
7 of 8 checks passed

github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 11, 2026

Conversation

bunnam988 commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

apattu200 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

bunnam988 commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading