RDKB-64265 Hardcoded WAN Interface Name (erouter0) in Business Gateway Feature by rirfha948 · Pull Request #282 · rdkcentral/utopia

rirfha948 · 2026-04-01T11:32:47Z

Reason for change: Removing erouter0 hardcode for reusability for different wan interface
Test Procedure:

Build OneStack Image
In Business-mode, Check dibbler server is started and server.conf has prefix-delegation class
In Residential-mode, check whether device behaves as a non-CBR device Risks: None
Priority: P1
[] Is this a User Story (US)?
This is a bug ticket
Have all dependent PRs from other components been listed ?
Does the commit message include both the User Story ticket and the Subtask ticket?
Will be all changes related to the User Story squashed and merged in a single commit?
Has the PR been raised only after completing all changes for the User Story (no partial changes)?
Has code development for the User Story been completed?
If yes, has the Gerrit topic or list of all dependent PRs across components (including meta-layer changes) been shared?
https://gerrit.teamccp.com/#/c/946157/
Is there a validation log available in the Jira ticket for verifying builds with the updated generic-srcrev.inc across all platforms?

vs residential Partner ID as part of single build Reason for change: Prefix delegation handling Test Procedure: - Build OneStack Image - In Business-mode, Check dibbler server is started and server.conf has prefix-delegation class - In Residential-mode, check whether device behaves as a non-CBR device Risks: None Priority: P1 Signed-off-by: rirfha948 <rasina_irfhan@comcast.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR aims to remove the hardcoded erouter0-based DHCPv6 prefix sysevent key usage in the IPv6 firewall path by dynamically building the prefix sysevent name from the current WAN interface name, improving reusability across platforms where the WAN interface name differs.

Changes:

Removes the fixed COSA_DML_DHCPV6C_PREF_SYSEVENT_NAME usage in the IPv6 firewall.
Builds tr_<current_wan_ifname>_dhcpv6_client_v6pref at runtime (with a fallback when current_wan_ifname is unset) and uses it to fetch the delegated prefix in multiple code paths.

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 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 · 2026-04-02T06:07:15Z

         fprintf(fp, "-A FORWARD -i brlan0 -o erouter0 -s %s -j REJECT --reject-with icmp6-policy-fail\n", prev_prefix);
      }
 #endif
-      if ( '\0' != prefix[0] ) {
+      if (( '\0' != prefix[0] ) && (strlen(current_wan_interface) != 0)) {
         //fprintf(fp, "-A FORWARD ! -s %s -i %s -m limit --limit 10/sec -j LOG --log-level %d --log-prefix \"UTOPIA: FW. IPv6 FORWARD anti-spoofing\"\n", prefix, lan_ifname,syslog_level);


current_wan_interface is declared only under _ONESTACK_PRODUCT_REQ_, but it’s referenced unconditionally in the if (( '\0' != prefix[0] ) && (strlen(current_wan_interface) != 0)) check. This will fail to compile for non-Onestack builds, and even on Onestack it can incorrectly skip adding IPv6 anti-spoofing rules when FEATURE_IPV6_DELEGATION is not supported (since current_wan_interface is never populated in the non-delegation branch). Consider either (a) guarding the current_wan_interface check with _ONESTACK_PRODUCT_REQ_ and only requiring it when delegation is enabled, or (b) always initializing current_wan_interface (e.g., from current_wan_ifname) before this check.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

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

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 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 · 2026-04-26T11:52:57Z

 #ifdef _ONESTACK_PRODUCT_REQ_
      if(isFeatureSupportedInCurrentMode(FEATURE_IPV6_DELEGATION))
      {
-	  sysevent_get(sysevent_fd, sysevent_token, COSA_DML_DHCPV6C_PREF_SYSEVENT_NAME, prefix, sizeof(prefix));
+	 strncpy(prefix, ipv6_delegation_prefix, sizeof(prefix) - 1);
      }


prefix is only initialized with prefix[0] = 0; and then filled via strncpy(..., sizeof(prefix) - 1). If ipv6_delegation_prefix is length >= sizeof(prefix)-1, strncpy won’t NUL-terminate and prefix[sizeof(prefix)-1] is uninitialized, leading to undefined behavior in later strlen/fprintf uses. Zero-initialize prefix (e.g., memset(prefix, 0, sizeof(prefix))) or explicitly set prefix[sizeof(prefix)-1] = '\0' after the copy (or use a guaranteed NUL-terminating copy helper).

Copilot · 2026-04-26T11:52:57Z

 #ifdef _ONESTACK_PRODUCT_REQ_
      if(isFeatureSupportedInCurrentMode(FEATURE_IPV6_DELEGATION))
      {
-         sysevent_get(sysevent_fd, sysevent_token, COSA_DML_DHCPV6C_PREF_SYSEVENT_NAME, prefix, sizeof(prefix));
+	 strncpy(prefix, ipv6_delegation_prefix, sizeof(prefix) - 1);
      }


Same strncpy NUL-termination issue here: prefix isn’t fully initialized before the copy and strncpy(..., sizeof(prefix) - 1) can leave the destination unterminated when the source is long/truncated. Ensure prefix is zeroed or force prefix[sizeof(prefix)-1] = '\0' after copying (or use a NUL-terminating helper).

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

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

Copilot · 2026-04-26T12:13:24Z

+#if defined (_ONESTACK_PRODUCT_REQ_)
+static char ipv6_delegation_prefix[129] ={0};
 #endif


PR title/description indicates removing hardcoded WAN interface name ("erouter0"), but this file still contains several hardcoded "erouter0" references (e.g., forwarding rules and a wan6_ifname fallback). If the intent is to fully remove the hardcode for reusability, these remaining occurrences should be updated to use the current WAN interface variable (or otherwise derived interface) as well; otherwise, please narrow the PR title/description to clarify that only the DHCPv6-PD sysevent key construction was generalized here.

rirfha948 requested review from a team as code owners April 1, 2026 11:32

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 1, 2026 11:32

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 1, 2026 11:33 View session

Merge branch 'develop' into topic/RDKB-64265

b0705ec

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

rirfha948 requested review from rajkamal-cv and veeraputhiran-thangavel April 1, 2026 11:45

snayak002c requested changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

rirfha948 requested a review from Copilot April 2, 2026 06:03

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 2, 2026 06:03 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Current_wan_ifname NULL check handling

6fca25f

rirfha948 force-pushed the topic/RDKB-64265 branch from ac70375 to 6fca25f Compare April 2, 2026 06:34

rirfha948 requested a review from Copilot April 2, 2026 07:49

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 2, 2026 07:49 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Apply suggestions from code review

ee94baa

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 2, 2026 08:07

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 2, 2026 08:07 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

S-Parthiban-Selvaraj requested changes Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Merge branch 'develop' into topic/RDKB-64265

e80c731

snayak002c requested changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 13, 2026 11:32

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 13, 2026 11:33 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Addressed review comments

5144bd6

rirfha948 force-pushed the topic/RDKB-64265 branch from e0163ce to 5144bd6 Compare April 13, 2026 11:46

rirfha948 requested a review from Copilot April 13, 2026 11:49

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 13, 2026 11:50 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c

Merge branch 'develop' into topic/RDKB-64265

6eda4be

snayak002c requested changes Apr 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Comment thread source/firewall/firewall_ipv6.c Outdated

Addressed review comment

40d4ba1

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 26, 2026 11:48

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 26, 2026 11:49 View session

Merge branch 'develop' into topic/RDKB-64265

91aa3a9

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Co-pilot comment addressed

eb79317

rirfha948 requested a review from Copilot April 26, 2026 12:09

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rirfha948 April 26, 2026 12:10 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

rirfha948 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants