Skip to content

[WEBRTCP] Add Streamusage validation for WebRTCP #39973

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

marktrayer
Copy link
Collaborator

Summary

Add validation of the provided stream usage to WebRTCP command handling.
Validation is based on the stream usage being 1) supported, and 2) associated with the allocated stream.
Updated the server, app, and Test Script WEBRTCP_2_5

Testing

Run WEBRTCP_2_* test scripts via the Python Test Runner against the updated camera app

Readability checklist

The checklist below will help the reviewer finish PR review in time and keep the
code readable:

  • PR title is
    descriptive
  • Apply the
    “When in Rome…”
    rule (coding style)
  • PR size is short
  • Try to avoid "squashing" and "force-update" in commit history
  • CI time didn't increase

See: Pull Request Guidelines

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request adds validation for stream usage in WebRTCP command handling, ensuring that the requested usage is supported and associated with an allocated stream. The changes span across the camera app, server logic, and test scripts.

My review identified a few issues:

  • A critical logic bug in ValidateStreamUsage that could lead to incorrect validation failures.
  • A high-severity issue where a snapshot size check was commented out, posing a potential resource exhaustion risk.
  • A couple of medium-severity issues related to code efficiency and use of magic numbers in tests.

I've provided specific suggestions to address these points. Overall, the changes are well-aligned with the PR's objective, and the new test cases are a great addition.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 11, 2025

PR #39973: Size comparison from 05171f2 to 72491eb

Full report (59 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, efr32, esp32, linux, nrfconnect, nxp, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
platform target config section 05171f2 72491eb change % change
bl602 lighting-app bl602+mfd+littlefs+rpc FLASH 1102622 1102622 0 0.0
RAM 179010 179010 0 0.0
bl702 lighting-app bl702+eth FLASH 656030 656030 0 0.0
RAM 134961 134961 0 0.0
bl702+wifi FLASH 833212 833212 0 0.0
RAM 124517 124517 0 0.0
bl706+mfd+rpc+littlefs FLASH 1065330 1065330 0 0.0
RAM 117373 117373 0 0.0
bl702l contact-sensor-app bl702l+mfd+littlefs FLASH 894876 894876 0 0.0
RAM 105660 105660 0 0.0
lighting-app bl702l+mfd+littlefs FLASH 978594 978594 0 0.0
RAM 109852 109852 0 0.0
cc13x4_26x4 lighting-app LP_EM_CC1354P10_6 FLASH 763128 763128 0 0.0
RAM 103368 103368 0 0.0
lock-ftd LP_EM_CC1354P10_6 FLASH 774668 774668 0 0.0
RAM 108536 108536 0 0.0
pump-app LP_EM_CC1354P10_6 FLASH 721008 721008 0 0.0
RAM 96940 96940 0 0.0
pump-controller-app LP_EM_CC1354P10_6 FLASH 705300 705300 0 0.0
RAM 97148 97148 0 0.0
cc32xx air-purifier CC3235SF_LAUNCHXL FLASH 548850 548850 0 0.0
RAM 205144 205144 0 0.0
lock CC3235SF_LAUNCHXL FLASH 581842 581842 0 0.0
RAM 205344 205344 0 0.0
efr32 lock-app BRD4187C FLASH 955016 955016 0 0.0
RAM 126564 126564 0 0.0
BRD4338a FLASH 749468 749460 -8 -0.0
RAM 251912 251912 0 0.0
window-app BRD4187C FLASH 1049576 1049576 0 0.0
RAM 122760 122760 0 0.0
esp32 all-clusters-app c3devkit DRAM 102272 102272 0 0.0
FLASH 1780616 1780616 0 0.0
IRAM 83862 83862 0 0.0
m5stack DRAM 121156 121156 0 0.0
FLASH 1747894 1747894 0 0.0
IRAM 117071 117071 0 0.0
linux air-purifier-app debug unknown 4856 4856 0 0.0
FLASH 2796646 2796646 0 0.0
RAM 117320 117320 0 0.0
all-clusters-app debug unknown 5672 5672 0 0.0
FLASH 6198206 6198206 0 0.0
RAM 531216 531216 0 0.0
all-clusters-minimal-app debug unknown 5536 5536 0 0.0
FLASH 5473562 5473562 0 0.0
RAM 228008 228008 0 0.0
bridge-app debug unknown 5568 5568 0 0.0
FLASH 4807802 4807802 0 0.0
RAM 207712 207712 0 0.0
camera-app debug unknown 8976 8976 0 0.0
FLASH 6935131 6948011 12880 0.2
RAM 230024 230200 176 0.1
camera-controller debug unknown 9216 9216 0 0.0
FLASH 14386923 14386923 0 0.0
RAM 661528 661528 0 0.0
chip-tool debug unknown 6272 6272 0 0.0
FLASH 14743639 14743639 0 0.0
RAM 655232 655232 0 0.0
chip-tool-ipv6only arm64 unknown 40672 40672 0 0.0
FLASH 12718695 12718695 0 0.0
RAM 701480 701480 0 0.0
closure-app debug unknown 5536 5536 0 0.0
FLASH 4790656 4790656 0 0.0
RAM 200584 200584 0 0.0
fabric-admin debug unknown 5952 5952 0 0.0
FLASH 12804169 12804169 0 0.0
RAM 654264 654264 0 0.0
fabric-bridge-app debug unknown 4816 4816 0 0.0
FLASH 4593134 4593134 0 0.0
RAM 193424 193424 0 0.0
fabric-sync debug unknown 5056 5056 0 0.0
FLASH 5741245 5741245 0 0.0
RAM 491728 491728 0 0.0
lighting-app debug+rpc+ui unknown 6280 6280 0 0.0
FLASH 5694593 5694593 0 0.0
RAM 209944 209944 0 0.0
lock-app debug unknown 5488 5488 0 0.0
FLASH 4836482 4836482 0 0.0
RAM 197192 197192 0 0.0
ota-provider-app debug unknown 4856 4856 0 0.0
FLASH 4446986 4446986 0 0.0
RAM 186112 186112 0 0.0
ota-requestor-app debug unknown 4736 4736 0 0.0
FLASH 4519108 4519108 0 0.0
RAM 188984 188984 0 0.0
shell debug unknown 4288 4288 0 0.0
FLASH 3076572 3076572 0 0.0
RAM 147344 147344 0 0.0
thermostat-no-ble arm64 unknown 9832 9832 0 0.0
FLASH 4236319 4236319 0 0.0
RAM 233304 233304 0 0.0
tv-app debug unknown 5824 5824 0 0.0
FLASH 6106237 6106237 0 0.0
RAM 615976 615976 0 0.0
tv-casting-app debug unknown 5352 5352 0 0.0
FLASH 12888029 12888029 0 0.0
RAM 771728 771728 0 0.0
nrfconnect all-clusters-app nrf52840dk_nrf52840 FLASH 888100 888100 0 0.0
RAM 166162 166162 0 0.0
nrf7002dk_nrf5340_cpuapp FLASH 897252 897252 0 0.0
RAM 145100 145100 0 0.0
all-clusters-minimal-app nrf52840dk_nrf52840 FLASH 858424 858424 0 0.0
RAM 141049 141049 0 0.0
nxp contact mcxw71+release FLASH 624800 624800 0 0.0
RAM 63164 63164 0 0.0
lock mcxw71+release FLASH 776008 776008 0 0.0
RAM 67820 67820 0 0.0
psoc6 all-clusters cy8ckit_062s2_43012 FLASH 1632532 1632532 0 0.0
RAM 211104 211104 0 0.0
all-clusters-minimal cy8ckit_062s2_43012 FLASH 1576708 1576708 0 0.0
RAM 208472 208472 0 0.0
light cy8ckit_062s2_43012 FLASH 1449500 1449500 0 0.0
RAM 197184 197184 0 0.0
lock cy8ckit_062s2_43012 FLASH 1481756 1481756 0 0.0
RAM 224904 224904 0 0.0
qpg lighting-app qpg6200+debug FLASH 744232 744232 0 0.0
RAM 94292 94292 0 0.0
lock-app qpg6200+debug FLASH 753852 753852 0 0.0
RAM 94320 94320 0 0.0
stm32 light STM32WB5MM-DK FLASH 465292 465292 0 0.0
RAM 141376 141376 0 0.0
telink bridge-app tl7218x FLASH 702340 702340 0 0.0
RAM 93600 93600 0 0.0
light-app-ota-compress-lzma-shell-factory-data tl3218x FLASH 794072 794072 0 0.0
RAM 44016 44016 0 0.0
light-app-ota-shell-factory-data tl7218x FLASH 782478 782478 0 0.0
RAM 100912 100912 0 0.0
light-switch-app-ota-compress-lzma-factory-data tl7218x_retention FLASH 709590 709590 0 0.0
RAM 54240 54240 0 0.0
light-switch-app-ota-compress-lzma-shell-factory-data tlsr9528a FLASH 746184 746184 0 0.0
RAM 77404 77404 0 0.0
light-switch-app-ota-factory-data tl3218x_retention FLASH 722910 722910 0 0.0
RAM 36996 36996 0 0.0
lighting-app-ota-factory-data tlsr9118bdk40d FLASH 603014 603014 0 0.0
RAM 112532 112532 0 0.0
lighting-app-ota-rpc-factory-data-4mb tlsr9518adk80d FLASH 818032 818036 4 0.0
RAM 99164 99164 0 0.0
tizen all-clusters-app arm unknown 5096 5096 0 0.0
FLASH 1695816 1695816 0 0.0
RAM 91444 91444 0 0.0
chip-tool-ubsan arm unknown 20768 20768 0 0.0
FLASH 21076194 21076194 0 0.0
RAM 9169420 9169420 0 0.0

@marktrayer marktrayer marked this pull request as ready for review July 11, 2025 20:59
CHIP_ERROR err = mDelegate.ValidateStreamUsage(req.streamUsage, videoStreamID, audioStreamID);
if (err != CHIP_NO_ERROR)
{
ChipLogError(Zcl, "HandleSolicitOffer: Cannot provide the stream usage requested");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why return DynamicConstraintError?

If not able to meet the conditions or are unable to provide another WebRTC session:

Invoke End with Reason set to OutOfResources, and end processing with no other side effects.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ValidateStreamUsage is covering the cases above that text that explicitly call out failure with DYNAMIC_CONSTRAINT_ERROR

  • stream usage is not in stream usage priorities
  • video stream is present and doesn't match allocated
  • audio stream is present and doesn't match allocated

ChipLogError(Zcl, "HandleProvideOffer: Cannot meet resource management conditions");
ctx.mCommandHandler.AddStatus(ctx.mRequestPath, Status::ResourceExhausted);
ChipLogError(Zcl, "HandleProvideOffer: Cannot provide stream usage requested");
ctx.mCommandHandler.AddStatus(ctx.mRequestPath, Status::DynamicConstraintError);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why return DynamicConstraintError? the spec require return ResourceExhausted here

If not able to meet the [Resource Management and Stream Priorities] conditions or are unable to provide another WebRTC session:

Respond with a response status of RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As per the previous comment, failure in this case is because of one of:

  • stream usage is not in stream usage priorities
  • video stream is present and doesn't match allocated
  • audio stream is present and doesn't match allocated

All of which necessitate DYNAMIC_CONSTRAINT_ERROR

{
ChipLogError(Zcl, "HandleSolicitOffer: Cannot provide the stream usage requested");
ctx.mCommandHandler.AddStatus(ctx.mRequestPath, Status::DynamicConstraintError);
return;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We also need to figure out how to send End command in this case per spec. Add TODO is ok

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the SolicitOffer case? There has been no actually Offer/Answer exchange in this failure setups, so no WebRTC stream has even been initiated.

@@ -335,12 +338,22 @@ void WebRTCTransportProviderServer::HandleSolicitOffer(HandlerContext & ctx, con
}
}

// Check resource management and stream priorities. If the IDs are Null the delegate will populate with
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// Check resource management and stream priorities. If the IDs are Null the delegate will populate with
// Check resource management and stream priorities. If the IDs are null the delegate will populate with

Comment on lines 204 to 205
* @param[in] videoStreamId Optional identifier for the requested video stream.
* @param[in] audioStreamId Optional identifier for the requested audio stream.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are now [in,out] parameters, no?

@@ -197,16 +197,17 @@ class Delegate
* The implementation SHALL ensure:
* - The requested stream usage (streamUsage) is allowed given the current allocation of
* camera resources (e.g. CPU, memory, network bandwidth) and the prioritized stream list.
* - If the provide IDs are null, it matches against an allocated stream with the same stream usage
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* - If the provide IDs are null, it matches against an allocated stream with the same stream usage
* - If the provided IDs are null, it matches against an allocated stream with the same stream usage

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants