Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

McDottie
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:18 am

Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby McDottie » Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:39 am

---- EDIT ----
This is corrected in the latest version it was a problem with OpenSSl
---- EDIT ----

Hi, for the the project i'm working on i need to be able to calculate the MD5 of a binary downloaded using the ESP-IDF OTA library and i've encountered a problem.

To do this i need to know the size of the file wich is given by executing the function

Code: Select all

esp_https_ota_get_image_len_read
after the download is done. The problem i'm facing is that the image size, independatly of the real image size, is returning always 289 bytes over the actual size.
In my experiences the only thing that i observed was that the

Code: Select all

esp_https_ota_perform
function is being called every 289 bytes. Is there a bug where it counts in excess or am i reading this all wrong.

Sorry for the short ammount of details regards,
Jose
Last edited by McDottie on Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

ESP_Mahavir
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:51 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby ESP_Mahavir » Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:58 am

Hello,

Can you please try "advanced_https_ota" example once? Please see code along the lines of https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... #L143-L150

Additionally, enabling debug logs could also help here. Please see https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... ota.c#L161

Thanks.

McDottie
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:18 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby McDottie » Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 am

ESP_Mahavir wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:58 am
Hello,

Can you please try "advanced_https_ota" example once? Please see code along the lines of https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... #L143-L150

Additionally, enabling debug logs could also help here. Please see https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... ota.c#L161

Thanks.
Sorry for the delayed response and thanks for the response. I have tried the example you mensioned, and the code i made was based on that, the read is preformed after

Code: Select all

esp_https_ota_perform
and in a loop.

After the debug log experiment i've observed the following:

Code: Select all

D (124982) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=1, is_chunked=0, content_length=790112
D (124992) TRANS_SSL: remain data in cache, need to read again
D (125002) HTTP_CLIENT: need_read=289, byte_to_read=289, rlen=289, ridx=0
D (125002) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_body 289
D (125012) esp_https_ota: Written image length 790126

D (125022) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=1, is_chunked=0, content_length=790112
D (125032) TRANS_SSL: remain data in cache, need to read again
D (125032) HTTP_CLIENT: need_read=289, byte_to_read=289, rlen=275, ridx=0
D (125042) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_body 275
D (125042) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_message_complete, parser=3ffd4b30
D (125052) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=0, is_chunked=0, content_length=790112
D (125062) esp_https_ota: Written image length 790401


So as you can see the content_length as the expected value where as the written image length as 289 bytes over the actual value, moreover every read that is made is made every 289 bytes so i assume that the counting of the size is wrong. Is there a way to access the content-length directly beeing that that is what i need?

Thanks

ESP_Mahavir
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:51 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby ESP_Mahavir » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:26 am

I would suggest to use API `esp_https_ota_get_image_size` https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... #L205-L218 instead. Since your logs shows that server is not sending data in chunked encoded fashion, this API shall directly return value from "Content-Length" header.

So as you can see the content_length as the expected value where as the written image length as 289 bytes over the actual value, moreover every read that is made is made every 289 bytes so i assume that the counting of the size is wrong.

We will check on this difference.

Hope this helps.

ESP_Shubham
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:09 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby ESP_Shubham » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:53 am

Hi,

I tried running advanced_https_ota example on IDF master (v5.0-dev-258-gf8f49de735) and did not see any difference in value of written image length and content length. Please see debug logs below:

Code: Select all

D (35048) esp_https_ota: Written image length 145656
D (35058) advanced_https_ota_example: Image bytes read: 145656
D (35058) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=1, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35068) TRANSPORT_BASE: remain data in cache, need to read again
D (35068) HTTP_CLIENT: need_read=289, byte_to_read=289, rlen=249, ridx=0
D (35078) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_body 249
D (35088) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_message_complete, parser=3ffaf4bc
D (35088) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=0, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35098) esp_https_ota: Written image length 145905
D (35098) advanced_https_ota_example: Image bytes read: 145905
D (35108) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=0, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35118) esp_https_ota: Connection closed
If you are observing this issue on specific IDF version, could you share IDF version by running `git describe --tags`?

Thanks,
Shubham

McDottie
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:18 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby McDottie » Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:57 am

ESP_Shubham wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:53 am
Hi,

I tried running advanced_https_ota example on IDF master (v5.0-dev-258-gf8f49de735) and did not see any difference in value of written image length and content length. Please see debug logs below:

Code: Select all

D (35048) esp_https_ota: Written image length 145656
D (35058) advanced_https_ota_example: Image bytes read: 145656
D (35058) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=1, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35068) TRANSPORT_BASE: remain data in cache, need to read again
D (35068) HTTP_CLIENT: need_read=289, byte_to_read=289, rlen=249, ridx=0
D (35078) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_body 249
D (35088) HTTP_CLIENT: http_on_message_complete, parser=3ffaf4bc
D (35088) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=0, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35098) esp_https_ota: Written image length 145905
D (35098) advanced_https_ota_example: Image bytes read: 145905
D (35108) HTTP_CLIENT: is_data_remain=0, is_chunked=0, content_length=145905
D (35118) esp_https_ota: Connection closed
If you are observing this issue on specific IDF version, could you share IDF version by running `git describe --tags`?

Thanks,
Shubham
Hi, i am using version v4.3.

McDottie
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:18 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby McDottie » Wed Nov 10, 2021 12:00 pm

ESP_Mahavir wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:26 am
I would suggest to use API `esp_https_ota_get_image_size` https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/bl ... #L205-L218 instead. Since your logs shows that server is not sending data in chunked encoded fashion, this API shall directly return value from "Content-Length" header.

So as you can see the content_length as the expected value where as the written image length as 289 bytes over the actual value, moreover every read that is made is made every 289 bytes so i assume that the counting of the size is wrong.

We will check on this difference.

Hope this helps.
Hi, i was going to used it the problem is that verson 4.3 with i believe is the latest stable one does not provide that function

Gardin
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:53 pm

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby Gardin » Thu Apr 27, 2023 12:10 pm

Any news on this? I'am having the exact same issue

hmalpani
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 02, 2023 9:22 am

Re: Is the OTA binary file size calculation wrong !?

Postby hmalpani » Tue May 02, 2023 9:27 am

Hello,
I tried the advanced_ota example on release/v4.3 branch and did not see any difference in the two values.
@Gardin, can you share the idf version as well as the test code which could reproduce this issue?
Thanks!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: snutw_ and 109 guests