1087131 - [B2G][STK] When modem reports an unsolicited message whose DCS is F6, screen will show blank message.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: RIL, defect)

Description

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

OS version
---------------------------------------------
FireFoxOS v1.4

Reproduce steps:
---------------------------------------------
Modem reports an unsolicited message "AT< +SPUSATPROCMDIND:D02C8103012181820281028D21F64D657373616765206661696C65642C20706C656173652074727920616761696E"

Expected result:
---------------------------------------------
STK shows “Message failed, please try again”

Actual result:
---------------------------------------------
STK shows blank

Probability:
---------------------------------------------
Always Recurrence

Comment 1

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

I think that is because FFOS doesn't support F6 Data Coding Scheme.
The agreement specified that "F6" represents 8-bit data ，Class 2 (U)SIM-specific message.
Before decoding the text string, codingScheme & 0x0f will be done.
However, FFOS seems only support "0x00","0x04","0x08".

// STK Coding Scheme.
this.STK_TEXT_CODING_GSM_7BIT_PACKED = 0x00;
this.STK_TEXT_CODING_GSM_8BIT = 0x04;
this.STK_TEXT_CODING_UCS2 = 0x08;

Comment 2

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

Dear Vance

Could you help to take a look at this issue?
Thanks.

Comment 3

[Vance Chen [:vchen][skype:vance.lucida][[e-mail]]]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #2)
> Dear Vance
> 
> Could you help to take a look at this issue?
> Thanks.

Hi Wei Gao -

Are we talking about MTSMS here? Because i find it hard to interpret the TPDU you mentioned in the issue description given that the F6 in that TPDU represents the DCS filed in the SMS MT TPDU.

Anyway loop Bevis to help to further check

Hi Bevis, mind taking a look at this one?

Comment 4

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Vance Chen [:vchen][[e-mail]] from comment #3)
> (In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #2)
> > Dear Vance
> > 
> > Could you help to take a look at this issue?
> > Thanks.
> 
> Hi Wei Gao -
> 
> Are we talking about MTSMS here? Because i find it hard to interpret the
> TPDU you mentioned in the issue description given that the F6 in that TPDU
> represents the DCS filed in the SMS MT TPDU.
> 
> Anyway loop Bevis to help to further check
> 
> Hi Bevis, mind taking a look at this one?

It's more likely to be an STK proactive command instead of MT SMS from comment 0.

NI reporter to
1. Clarify if we are talking about the STK proactive command and provide more detailed user scenario
   of this symptom for reference.(What's the reproducible step by device user for this symptom?)
2. Capture adb logcat of main log & radio log for further analysis.

Thanks!

Comment 5

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

(In reply to Bevis Tseng [:bevistseng] ([e-mail]) from comment #4)
> NI reporter to
> 1. Clarify if we are talking about the STK proactive command and provide
> more detailed user scenario
>    of this symptom for reference.(What's the reproducible step by device
> user for this symptom?)
> 2. Capture adb logcat of main log & radio log for further analysis.
> 
> Thanks!

Yes, that is right, it is a STK proactive command.
I will upload the log you need.

Comment 6

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

Attachment: slog.zip

Dear Bevis

This is the log for this issue.
As the reproducible step is a little complex, so I upload a video to show it.
http://pan.baidu.com/s/1bnetlzL

I think this issue is related to some special operators.
Could you help to check it again?
Thanks a great.

Comment 7

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #6)
> Created attachment 8509220 [details]
> slog.zip
> 
> Dear Bevis
> 
> This is the log for this issue.
> As the reproducible step is a little complex, so I upload a video to show it.
> http://pan.baidu.com/s/1bnetlzL
> 
> I think this issue is related to some special operators.
> Could you help to check it again?
> Thanks a great.

Thanks for providing these information.
I'll check it and feedback you soon.

Comment 8

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #1)
> I think that is because FFOS doesn't support F6 Data Coding Scheme.
> The agreement specified that "F6" represents 8-bit data ，Class 2
> (U)SIM-specific message.
> Before decoding the text string, codingScheme & 0x0f will be done.
> However, FFOS seems only support "0x00","0x04","0x08".
> 
> // STK Coding Scheme.
> this.STK_TEXT_CODING_GSM_7BIT_PACKED = 0x00;
> this.STK_TEXT_CODING_GSM_8BIT = 0x04;
> this.STK_TEXT_CODING_UCS2 = 0x08;

After further analysis from the logs, the root cause is that:
1. According to 8.15 Text string in TS 102 223. [1], the DCS is coded as for SMS Data coding scheme defined in TS 123 038 [2], and the recommand value are 0x00 (GSM 7bit packed), 0x04 (GSM 7bit unpacked), 0x08 (UCS2).
2. If we filter out the Coding groups of "Message Marked for Automatic Deletion Group", "Message Waiting Indication Group" in [2] that are not related to STK proactive command, we can figure out that the DCS MASK for STK Text String shall be "0x0C" instead of "0x0F" used in current implementation.

So the fix of this bug is simple to have "0x0C" as the DCS MASK.
I'll upload the fix and the corresponding test cases to enhance our test coverage.

[1] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102200_102299/102223/12.01.00_60/ts_102223v120100p.pdf
[2] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123000_123099/123038/11.00.00_60/ts_123038v110000p.pdf

Comment 9

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

Hi Edgar,

May I have your review for this quick fix?

Thanks!

Comment 10

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: Part 2 v1: Add Test Cases for STK Display Text in various Coding Schemes. r=echen

This is to 
1. add the corresponding test case of Display Text with different DCS.
2. minor change for the alignment.

Hi Edgar,

May I have your review for these new test cases?

Thanks!

Comment 11

[Edgar Chen [:edgar] (Parental leave until Oct. 09.)]

Comment on attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

Review of attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you.

Comment 12

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

(In reply to Edgar Chen [:edgar][:echen] from comment #11)
> Comment on attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]
> Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F)
> according to 3GPP TS 23.040.
> 
> Review of attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you.

Thank Bevis for your kindly help.
So, can it be landed on v1.4 now?

Comment 13

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: [1.4v][2.0v] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

Comment 14

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: [1.4v][2.0v] Part 2 v1: Add Test Cases for STK Display Text in various Coding Schemes. r=echen

Comment 15

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #12)
> (In reply to Edgar Chen [:edgar][:echen] from comment #11)
> > Comment on attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]
> > Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F)
> > according to 3GPP TS 23.040.
> > 
> > Review of attachment 8509380 [details] [diff] [review]:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Thank you.
> 
> Thank Bevis for your kindly help.
> So, can it be landed on v1.4 now?

Hi Wei Gao,

Patches for 1.4v has been uploaded.
However, there is no option to set blocking-b2g for 1.4 for uplifting now.
Would you please cherry pick these 2 patches instead?

Thanks!

Comment 16

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

(In reply to Bevis Tseng [:bevistseng] ([e-mail]) from comment #15)
> Hi Wei Gao,
> 
> Patches for 1.4v has been uploaded.
> However, there is no option to set blocking-b2g for 1.4 for uplifting now.
> Would you please cherry pick these 2 patches instead?
> 
> Thanks!

Dear Bevis

Do you mean it can't be landed on v1.4 now and I can take this patch in our sprd branch locally instead?
Thanks.

Comment 17

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #16)
> (In reply to Bevis Tseng [:bevistseng] ([e-mail]) from comment #15)
> > Hi Wei Gao,
> > 
> > Patches for 1.4v has been uploaded.
> > However, there is no option to set blocking-b2g for 1.4 for uplifting now.
> > Would you please cherry pick these 2 patches instead?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> Dear Bevis
> 
> Do you mean it can't be landed on v1.4 now and I can take this patch in our
> sprd branch locally instead?
> Thanks.

Yes, sorry for inconvenience and thanks for reporting these issues to keep improving our quality in m-c branch.

Bevis

Comment 18

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

[Reason to set 2.0m?]
The STK related texts to be displayed in the dialog or menu won't be displayed if the coding scheme of the text is set to coding group 0xF0 which is legal according to 8.15 Text string in TS 102 223. [1] and SMS Coding Scheme in [2] but is not identified correctly in our implementation.
Set 2.0m? instead of 2.0? because it shall not impact to v2.0 if CAF RIL is applied.

[1] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102200_102299/102223/12.01.00_60/ts_102223v120100p.pdf
[2] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123000_123099/123038/11.00.00_60/ts_123038v110000p.pdf

Comment 19

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

(In reply to Bevis Tseng [:bevistseng] ([e-mail]) from comment #17)
> Yes, sorry for inconvenience and thanks for reporting these issues to keep
> improving our quality in m-c branch.
> 
> Bevis

I am glad to do that and be happy to work with you.  :)
Thanks again.

Wei

Comment 20

[Wei Gao (Spreadtrum)]

Sorry, it is a mistake, I make the flag 2.0M? again.

Comment 21

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

(In reply to Wei Gao (Spreadtrum) from comment #20)
> Sorry, it is a mistake, I make the flag 2.0M? again.

Thanks! :)

Comment 22

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

update try server result:
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/ui/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=c158a17e40fb

Comment 23

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/249161b3fda7
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/19c38453850f

Comment 24

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/249161b3fda7
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/19c38453850f

Comment 25

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Comment on attachment 8510055 [details] [diff] [review]
[1.4v][2.0v] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Not a regression. The problem exists since STK feature was added.
User impact if declined: For some carrier, if the coding scheme F6 was used by the STK application of their SIM cards, the text to be displayed will not be decoded correctly. Then, an empty string will be displayed instead.
Testing completed: Yes. New test cases were added in patch part2 to improve the test coverage.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): No.
String or UUID changes made by this patch: No.

Comment 26

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Comment on attachment 8510056 [details] [diff] [review]
[1.4v][2.0v] Part 2 v1: Add Test Cases for STK Display Text in various Coding Schemes. r=echen

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 
User impact if declined: 
Testing completed: 
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): 
String or UUID changes made by this patch:

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 
User impact if declined: 
Testing completed: 
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): 
String or UUID changes made by this patch:

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Not a regression. The problem exists since STK feature was added.
User impact if declined: For some carrier, if the coding scheme F6 was used by the STK application of their SIM cards, the text to be displayed will not be decoded correctly. Then, an empty string will be displayed instead.
Testing completed: Yes. New test cases were added in patch part2 to improve the test coverage.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): No.
String or UUID changes made by this patch: No.

Comment 27

[Kai-Zhen Li [:seinlin][:kli]]

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0m/rev/ab232bd3e615
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0m/rev/7806da9c73f6

Comment 28

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

Comment on attachment 8510055 [details] [diff] [review]
[1.4v][2.0v] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen


Discussed offline with Bevis/Ken on not taking this for 2.0 at this point.
For 2.1, once we have a necessary branches created we can land this at that point.

Comment 29

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Comment on attachment 8510055 [details] [diff] [review]
[1.4v][2.0v] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

2.1 has to be created in separated one.

Comment 30

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Comment on attachment 8510056 [details] [diff] [review]
[1.4v][2.0v] Part 2 v1: Add Test Cases for STK Display Text in various Coding Schemes. r=echen

2.1 has to be created in a separated patch.

Comment 31

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Per comment 24. (patch was landed in m-c)

Comment 32

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: [v2.1] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Not a regression. The problem exists since STK feature was added in MOZ RIL.
User impact if declined: For some carrier, if the coding scheme F6 was used by the STK application of their SIM cards, the text to be displayed will not be decoded correctly. Then, an empty string will be displayed instead.
Testing completed: Yes. New test cases were added in patch part2 to improve the test coverage.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): No.
String or UUID changes made by this patch: No.

Comment 33

[Bevis Tseng[:bevis][:btseng](Exited)]

Attachment: [v2.1] Part 2 v1: Add Test Cases for STK Display Text in various Coding Schemes. r=echen

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Not a regression. The problem exists since STK feature was added in MOZ RIL.
User impact if declined: For some carrier, if the coding scheme F6 was used by the STK application of their SIM cards, the text to be displayed will not be decoded correctly. Then, an empty string will be displayed instead.
Testing completed: Yes. New test cases were added in patch part2 to improve the test coverage.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): No.
String or UUID changes made by this patch: No.

Comment 34

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1085765#c35

Comment 35

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

Comment on attachment 8515733 [details] [diff] [review]
[v2.1] Part 1 v1: Filter DCS of STK Text String with MASK(0x0C) instead of (0x0F) according to 3GPP TS 23.040. r=echen

Refer : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1085765#c35 for 2.1 approval