FreeIPMI Coding
by
Albert Chu
chu11@llnl.gov
These are some short descriptions on coding style, API style, design
decisions, and various other thoughts.
1) Code Style
-------------
The GNU coding style was selected for FreeIPMI. Please try to follow
the coding style used in the rest of FreeIPMI. Here's a short example
that covers the generics of our code style.
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int a = 0;
int b = 1;
if (a == 1)
printf("yoda\n");
if (a == 5
|| b == 1)
{
printf("foobar\n");
printf("xyzzy\n");
}
while (a++ < 5)
printf("lala\n");
while (b++ < 7)
{
printf("blah\n");
printf("garble\n");
}
}
2) Parameter Checking
---------------------
Please carefully check the input parameters on the inputs your
program and/or functions take. Minor parsing issues can lead to
catastrophic mistakes in IPMI.
For example, suppose you have a --power-control option that takes a
number to represent a type of operation (on, off, etc.). Suppose a
user inputs "--power-control=foobar". The "foobar" will be read as a
'0' by strtoul(). If not properly checked, the '0' can be passed to
the IPMI Chassis Control command, which uses the '0' to power off a
node.
In programs, when appropriate, output error messages to the user
indicating that how and why the inputted parameters were incorrect.
3) Code Consistency
-------------------
Please keep your code as consistent as possible to other code in
FreeIPMI. That includes code indenting style, brace style, API style,
and naming convention (which is discussed in more detail below).
Although there may be situations that a particular API style or naming
convention will make things easier for you and your code (such as
shortening the name of a function, decreasing the number of parameters
you need to pass to a function via a struct, etc.), we ask that your
code be consistent so that it does not confuse other developers.
If there is a distinct technical reason that you must use a different
API style, please bring it up with the FreeIPMI authors.
For example, pretty much all of the "fill" functions in libfreeipmi
take the exact parameters they need to fill the fiid object which is
passed along as a parameter. All parameters are passed by value, not
by a pointer or other method (e.g. object, struct, etc.).
Exceptions do exist. For example, fill_cmd_chassis_identify() takes
parameters passed by pointer instead of passed by value. The reason
is that both fields are optional and need not be filled according to
the IPMI specification. The pointer gives the caller the ability to
set values (by passing a valid pointer) or not (by passing NULL).
4) Libfreeipmi naming/function parameter conventions
----------------------------------------------------
The naming style in libfreeipmi was developed primarily for the
purpose of readability when code is being compared to the IPMI
specification.
Due to the size of the IPMI spec, there will be a lot of code. In
earlier versions of FreeIPMI, there was confusion on where code was
located, what parameters were called, how parameters should be input,
etc. due to different people using different abbreviations styles,
putting functions out of order with the spec, in different files,
using/not-using different bitmasks, etc. The code has been auditted
and cleaned up since then.
So when adding new functions/templates/parameters/files/etc. to
libfreeipmi, please name them consistently to the rest of the
libfreeipmi library and the IPMI specification.
This includes:
- naming functions/templates/parameters/files based on the spec
- in most cases, not abbreviating any words (or using consistent
abbreviations in the rest of the library, check first!)
- matching parameter lists to the templates and in the same order
- ordering functions/templates/parameters/files/etc. consistently with the spec.
For example:
ipmi-messaging-support-cmds.c
is the file for messaging support commands, chapter 22 of the IPMI 2.0 spec.
tmpl_cmd_get_channel_authentication_capabilities_rq
tmpl_cmd_get_channel_authentication_capabilities_rs
are the templates for the Get Channel Authentication Capapilities
command.
fiid_template_t tmpl_cmd_get_channel_authentication_capabilities_rq =
{
{ 8, "cmd", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 4, "channel_number", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 3, "reserved1", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "get_ipmi_v2.0_extended_data", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 4, "maximum_privilege_level", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 4, "reserved2", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 0, "", 0}
};
fiid_template_t tmpl_cmd_get_channel_authentication_capabilities_rs =
{
{ 8, "cmd", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED | FIID_FIELD_MAKES_PACKET_SUFFICIENT},
{ 8, "comp_code", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED | FIID_FIELD_MAKES_PACKET_SUFFICIENT},
{ 8, "channel_number", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.none", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.md2", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.md5", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.reserved1", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.straight_password_key", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.oem_prop", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.reserved2", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_type.ipmi_v2.0_extended_capabilities_available", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.anonymous_login", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.null_username", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.non_null_username", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.user_level_authentication", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.per_message_authentication", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "authentication_status.k_g", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 2, "authentication_status.reserved", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "channel_supports_ipmi_v1.5_connections", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 1, "channel_supports_ipmi_v2.0_connections", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 6, "reserved", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 24, "oem_id", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 8, "oem_auxiliary_data", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{ 0, "", 0}
};
The fields listed in the templates above directly match table 22-15,
the Get Channel Authentication Capabilities request and response
commands.
int fill_cmd_get_channel_authentication_capabilities (uint8_t channel_number,
uint8_t maximum_privilege_level,
fiid_obj_t obj_cmd_rq);
The function above matches the naming and takes exactly the parameters
needed by the Get Channel Authentication Capabilities request
template.
The coding conditions specified above may lead to function names or
function parameters names that exceed the 80 column mark or having
very long parameter lists. We accept this annoyance (or poor coding
style, we admit it), as we consider matching the specification as a
more important need in libfreeipmi.
For example:
int
fill_cmd_set_lan_configuration_parameters_authentication_type_enables (uint8_t channel_number,
uint8_t callback_level_none,
uint8_t callback_level_md2,
uint8_t callback_level_md5,
uint8_t callback_level_straight_password,
uint8_t callback_level_oem_proprietary,
uint8_t user_level_none,
uint8_t user_level_md2,
uint8_t user_level_md5,
uint8_t user_level_straight_password,
uint8_t user_level_oem_proprietary,
uint8_t operator_level_none,
uint8_t operator_level_md2,
uint8_t operator_level_md5,
uint8_t operator_level_straight_password,
uint8_t operator_level_oem_proprietary,
uint8_t admin_level_none,
uint8_t admin_level_md2,
uint8_t admin_level_md5,
uint8_t admin_level_straight_password,
uint8_t admin_level_oem_proprietary,
uint8_t oem_level_none,
uint8_t oem_level_md2,
uint8_t oem_level_md5,
uint8_t oem_level_straight_password,
uint8_t oem_level_oem_proprietary,
fiid_obj_t obj_cmd_rq);
The function name and parameters look pretty long and terrible. But
the names and fields exactly match the get authentication type enables
fields listed in Table 23-4. There should be very little difficulty
understanding what this funciton does, how it should be called, and
what the parameters are if you are reading along with the spec.
Because we want the code to match the IPMI spec as closely as
possible, we currently accept the code inefficiencies (due to large
stacks of parameters) that come with having long parameters lists and
the atrocities of having gigantic 25+ parameter function calls in
code.
5) Fiid vs. other Marshalling/Unmarshalling Styles
--------------------------------------------------
Several programmers have asked us why we have chosen a relatively
unpopular/different method to marshall/unmarshall IPMI packets and
build network packets.
First, lets discuss several classic methods for
marshalling/unmarshalling data when using structs to represent a
packet.
Method A: Marshall/Unmarshall "manually":
-----------------------------------------
struct packet
{
uint8_t field_1; /* 1 bit */
uint8_t field_2; /* 3 bits */
uint8_t field_3; /* 4 bits */
int16_t field_4; /* 16 bits */
};
my_marshall_function(struct packet *pkt, char *buf, unsigned int buflen)
{
buf[0] |= pkt->field_1 & 0x1;
buf[0] |= (pkt->field_2 << 1) & 0x0E;
buf[0] |= (pkt->field_3 << 4) & 0xF0;
/* assuming network byte order here */
buf[1] |= (pkt->field_4 & 0xFF00) >> 8;
buf[2] |= pkt->field_4 & 0x00FF;
}
my_unmarshall_function(struct packet *pkt, char *buf, unsigned int buflen)
{
pkt->field_1 = buf[0] & 0x01;
pkt->field_2 = buf[0] & 0x0E >> 1;
pkt->field_3 = buf[0] & 0xF0 >> 4;
#if LITTLE_ENDIAN_HOST
pkt->field_4 = buf[2] | buf[1] << 8;;
#else
pkt->field_4 = buf[1] | buf[2] << 8;;
#endif
}
general_usage_example()
{
struct packet pkt;
char buf[1024];
int len;
pkt.field_1 = 1;
pkt.field_2 = 2;
pkt.field_3 = 3;
pkt.field_4 = 5;
my_marshall_function(&pkt, buf, 1024);
/* then do something with the buffer */
len = my_receive_data_function(buf);
my_unmarshall_function(&pkt, buf, len);
printf("field_1 is: %d\n", pkt.field_1);
}
Pros:
A) No need to deal with struct packing issues in the compiler.
B) The struct definition describes packets closely and is relatively
easy to use and understand.
C) Relatively efficient.
D) General usage code size is relatively small.
E) General usage need not determine field type (e.g. is it an unsigned
or signed integer).
Cons:
A) Have to deal with endian problems.
B) Lots of marshalling and unmarshalling code are required for each
packet type.
C) Relatively difficult to deal with optional fields. (You'll need
flags in the struct to indicate if a field was set/unset, or validate
the fields via protocol definition knowledge.)
D) Relatively difficult to deal with variable length fields. (You'll
need a length parameter in the struct to indicate the length of a
field.)
E) Packet dumps/debugging is relatively poor (you only get hex) or you
have to create debug functions to handle each packet type.
Method B: Cast a buffer to a packed struct:
-------------------------------------------
For Example:
struct packet
{
uint8_t field_1 : 1;
uint8_t field_2 : 3;
uint8_t field_3 : 4;
int16_t field_4;
};
my_marshall_function(struct packet *pkt, char *buf, unsigned int buflen)
{
memcpy(buf, pkt, sizeof(struct packet));
#if LITTLE_ENDIAN_HOST
swap(&buf[1], &buf[2]);
#endif
}
my_unmarshall_function(struct packet *pkt, char *buf, unsigned int buflen)
{
*pkt = *((struct packet *)buf);
#if LITTLE_ENDIAN_HOST
pkt->field_4 = ntohs(pkt->field_4);
#endif
}
general_usage_example()
{
struct packet pkt;
char buf[1024];
int len;
pkt.field_1 = 1;
pkt.field_2 = 2;
pkt.field_3 = 3;
pkt.field_4 = 5;
my_marshall_function(&pkt, buf, 1024);
/* then do something with the buffer */
len = my_receive_data_function(buf);
my_unmarshall_function(&pkt, buf, len);
printf("field_1 is: %d\n", pkt.field_1);
}
Pros:
A) Not too much marshalling and unmarshalling code is required.
B) General usage code size is relatively small.
C) The struct definition describes packets exactly and is relatively
easy to use and understand.
D) Very efficient (little actual marshalling/unmarshalling needs to be done.)
E) General usage need not determine field type (e.g. is it an unsigned
or signed integer).
Cons:
A) Have to deal with endian problems.
B) Have to deal with portability of struct packing techniques (there
are differences in compilers, but nowadays, this may be
easier/more portable than I originally believed it to be).
C) Difficult to deal with optional fields (no flags can be put
in the struct to indicate if a field was set/unset, can only
validate the fields via protocol definition knowledge.)
D) No mechanism to deal with variable length fields (no length
field can be put in the struct to indicate the field length.)
E) Packet dumps/debugging is relatively poor (you only get hex) or you
have to create debug functions to handle each packet type.
Our Method C: string_name -> bitmask mapping
--------------------------------------------
The "FreeIPMI Interface Definition" or 'fiid' API in libfreeipmi uses
a string_name/bit_count template and an API to get and set values in a
packet to handle marshalling/unmarshalling.
The following are a few of the API functions used for FIID to give you
an idea for the fiid API:
fiid_obj_t fiid_obj_create (fiid_template_t tmpl);
int32_t fiid_obj_errnum(fiid_obj_t obj);
int8_t fiid_obj_clear (fiid_obj_t obj);
int8_t fiid_obj_set (fiid_obj_t obj, char *field, uint64_t val);
int8_t fiid_obj_get (fiid_obj_t obj, char *field, uint64_t *val);
int32_t fiid_obj_get_all (fiid_obj_t obj, uint8_t *data, uint32_t data_len);
int32_t fiid_obj_set_all (fiid_obj_t obj, uint8_t *data, uint32_t data_len);
The following is the fiid equivalent in the previous examples:
fiid_template_t tmpl_example =
{
{1, "field_1", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{3, "field_2", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{4, "field_3", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{16, "field_4", FIID_FIELD_REQUIRED | FIID_FIELD_LENGTH_FIXED},
{0, "", 0}
};
general_usage_example()
{
fiid_obj_t obj;
char buf[1024];
int len;
uint64_t val;
obj = fiid_obj_create(tmpl_example);
fiid_obj_set(obj, "field_1", 1);
fiid_obj_set(obj, "field_2", 2);
fiid_obj_set(obj, "field_3", 3);
fiid_obj_set(obj, "field_4", 5);
/* "marshall" the packet */
fiid_obj_get_all(obj, buf, 1024);
/* then do something with the buffer */
fiid_obj_clear(obj);
len = my_receive_data_function(buf);
/* "unmarshall" the packet */
fiid_obj_set_all(obj, buf, len);
fiid_obj_get(obj, "field_1", &val);
printf("field_1 is: %d\n", (int16_t)val);
}
The pros and cons of the fiid method are:
Pros:
A) No need to deal with endian problems (handled internally in the API).
B) No need to deal with struct packing issues (bit shifts are handled
internally in the API).
C) Easier to deal with optional fields (For marshalling, don't set a
field. For unmarshalling, the api can identify if a field is set or not).
D) Easier to deal with variable length fields (For marshalling, set
whatever length you want. For unmarshalling, the api can identify the
length of the field read).
E) Templates describe the packets exactly.
F) Easy to do large packet dumps and debug (fields and values easily
output and identified).
G) Significantly reduce the amount of marshalling, unmarshalling, and
debug code needed (the API "handles" it all already).
Cons:
A) Need to learn/use a reasonably large API and learn/use all the
templates.
B) Pretty inefficient (lots of string comparisons).
C) Lots of duplicate templates (relative inability to "inherit"
structs without #define mangling/hackery).
D) General usage code size is increased.
E) General usage must determine and cast field to appropriate type
(e.g. is it an unsigned or signed integer).
(Side Comments:
Some other networking APIs have a similar API, but use
macros/enums for the field names rather than strings. Many of the
above benefits are identical, except the debug dump output
capabilities are weaker in exchange for better performance.
Some other networking APIs may return a type of a field (e.g. signed
vs unsigned, 16bit vs 32bit, etc.). That would remove need to
determine casting in general usage in exchange for larger general
usage code size.)
The big reasons why this was developed and chosen over traditional
methods.
A) The IPMI specification is very large, so reducing code size weighed
in as an important factor for the authors. This allowed there to be
fewer marshalling/unmarshalling/debug functions. By one authors
counting in the specification, there are 304 different base payloads
in the IPMI specification. This does not include permutations of
payloads due to different versions, optional fields, headers,
trailers, encryption, oem extensions, record formats data is stored
in, etc.
B) There are a relatively large number of optional fields and variable
length fields in the IPMI specification. As stated above, the
traditional struct based marshalling/unmarshalling have issues
with handling these.
C) The lack of IPMI compliance from vendors is a well known problem in
the open-source community. The templates have saved developers
countless hours of debugging time due to the easy method by which
packets can be dumped with their fields and values quickly identified.
It is very easy to find vendor IPMI compliance problems very quickly.
Here's an example of a dump:
pwopr2: : RMCP Header:
pwopr2: : ------------
pwopr2: [ 6h] = version[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = reserved[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ FFh] = sequence_number[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 7h] = message_class.class[ 5b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = message_class.reserved[ 2b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = message_class.ack[ 1b]
pwopr2: : IPMI Session Header:
pwopr2: : --------------------
pwopr2: [ 0h] = authentication_type[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = session_sequence_number[32b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = session_id[32b]
pwopr2: [ 9h] = ipmi_msg_len[ 8b]
pwopr2: : IPMI Message Header:
pwopr2: : --------------------
pwopr2: [ 20h] = rs_addr[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = rs_lun[ 2b]
pwopr2: [ 6h] = net_fn[ 6b]
pwopr2: [ C8h] = checksum1[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 81h] = rq_addr[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = rq_lun[ 2b]
pwopr2: [ 26h] = rq_seq[ 6b]
pwopr2: : IPMI Command Data:
pwopr2: : ------------------
pwopr2: [ 38h] = cmd[ 8b]
pwopr2: [ Eh] = channel_number[ 4b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = reserved1[ 3b]
pwopr2: [ 1h] = get_ipmi_v2.0_extended_data[ 1b]
pwopr2: [ 2h] = maximum_privilege_level[ 4b]
pwopr2: [ 0h] = reserved2[ 4b]
pwopr2: : IPMI Trailer:
pwopr2: : --------------
pwopr2: [ 1Fh] = checksum2[ 8b]
6) Non-generic error messages
-----------------------------
Under some circumstances, it may be preferred to return generic error
messages to the user, so that a malicious user cannot infer remote
login information from different error messages returned. For
example, returning a generic error message of "Permission Denied"
would not give a malicious user information on whether the username or
password was input incorrectly.
Although implemented earlier on, the authors have elected to not
implement this now. There are many vendor implementations of IPMI and
many configuration options (authentication mechanism, cipher suite id,
username, password, K_g, privilege level) needed for proper IPMI
session establishment. The number of error messages that could be
mapped into a generic "Permission Denied" would make it too difficult
for users to determine why they failed to connect properly. The
overall worth of implementing a generic "Permission Denied" error
message just doesn't seem worth it now.
7) Get Channel Authentication Capabilities Command
--------------------------------------------------
The Get Channel Authentication Capabilities Command is typically the
first packet sent in the IPMI session. It returns information
on the remote machine's support of:
A) IPMI 1.5 authentication mechanisms (e.g. md2, md5, etc.)
B) IPMI 1.5 and/or IPMI 2.0
C) per msg authentication
D) K_g status
E) null username/non-null username/anonymous logins
Currently, in FreeIPMI, we check each of these values during the
session setup to determine if a person can connect to the remote
machine later in the protocol:
A) If the user input an unsupported authentication mechanism, we
return an error.
B) If the user requested IPMI 2.0, but the remote machine doesn't
support IPMI 2.0, we return an error.
C) We determine if per msg authentication should be considered later
in the protocol session.
D) If the user was required/not-required to input a K_g value, we
return an error appropriately.
E) If the user input an unsupported username/password combination, we
return an error appropriately.
There is a question as to what values above, if any, need to be
checked and appropriate errors returned to the user. The Get Channel
Authentication Capabilities command is often implemented incorrectly
by a number of vendors, so that overall benefit of checks
has been put in question. The authors have elected to keep
all the checks for the following reasons.
* 'A' and 'B' should be checked to avoid potential timeouts:
- Later in the protocol, the password could be sent/hashed
incorrectly, leading to a timeout because packets are not accepted by
the remote machine.
- If the remote machine does not support IPMI 2.0, later packets
could timeout because the remote machine does not recognize the packet
format.
* 'C''s checks could be skipped as long as per msg authentication was not
supported.
* 'D''s checks could be skipped, because an improper null vs non-null K_g
will be caught later during IPMI 2.0 authentication.
* 'E''s checks are the most complicated. An improper null vs non-null
username will be caught later during IPMI 1.5 and IPMI 2.0
authentication. An improper null vs non-null password can be caught
later during IPMI 2.0 authentication, but may result in a timeout
during IPMI 1.5 authentication.
An argument could also be made that the speed at which an invalid
username/password error is returned to a user could also give a
malicious user information on the username/password of the remote BMC.
In the end, the authors have felt the overall positive benefits
provided by the checking of these values provides more than the
negative implications. Changes in the overall industry implementation
could change this viewpoint later.
8) Configuration tool callback design
-------------------------------------
Bmc-config, Ipmi-chassis-config, Ipmi-pef-config, and
Ipmi-sensors-config (henceforce together just called Configtools) are
coded with a archicture that reads/writes each configurable field in
the BMC separately.
As an example, suppose we have the following BMC configuration file
we'd like to commit.
FieldA Value1
FieldB.1 Value2
FieldB.2 Value3
FieldB.3 Value4
FieldB.4 Value5
Suppose FieldA is read/written using a single IPMI packet and fields
FieldB.1-FieldB.4 can be read/written using a single IPMI packet.
In the architecture that the Configtools are currently based on, the
above would require 5 read requests to read all 5 values. It would
require 1 read request for FieldA, 4 read requests for
FieldB.1-FieldB.4, and 5 write requests to write the values.
Obviously, this sounds like (and is!) very inefficient.
The authors acknowledge that the code is very inefficient b/c it will
cause an excess number of request/response packets to be generated. With
a large number of inputs the Configtools can be slow.
Here are some of the major reasons why this was done and is still
kept.
A) Due to widely varying IPMI versions and implementations, this
handles the write configuration case best. Suppose FieldB.2 is only
configurable on IPMI 2.0 systems but not IPMI 1.5 systems. Suppose
(perhaps b/c it is optional in the IPMI specification) FieldB.3 is
supported by some vendors but not other vendors. Suppose FieldB.4 is
simply not implemented correctly by the vendor.
This architecture allows the majority of the configuration to succeed
on a specific platform, and allows the end user to know exactly what
fields may or may not be configurable. If all 4 fields of
FieldB.1-FieldB.4 were written at the same time, there is currently no
method in the IPMI protocol to know what field was configured
incorrectly and why (only a generic error of "invalid input" is
returned, but you won't know which field it is).
In the future, functionality could be added to retry each field
separately if there was such a failure, however that would add another
piece of complexity into the code we currently don't have time to add.
(Not to mention, can we trust that all the IPMI firmware writers will
return consistent error codes such that this could be implemented
across a large number of motherboards).
B) There are several (and possibly more future) vendor compliance
problems that can be (or will need to be) worked around. By using
this architecture each specific field can be worked around
independently depending on the vendor. These workarounds need to be
handled on both the read and write conditions.
One of the major fallouts from this design is that if an
invalid/illegal configuration exists on the motherboard by default,
some configuration values may not be configurable. For example,
suppose we want to write the following config to the BMC.
FieldA.1 Value1
FieldA.2 Value2
FieldA.3 Value3
FieldA.4 Value4
The architecture of the config tools will read FieldA.1-FieldA.4 from
the BMC, change only FieldA.1, then try to write all the fields back
to the BMC. Then it would be repeated for FieldA.2, etc.
However, suppose the default setting on the motherboard for FieldA.4
is illegal. Then each time we attempt to write FieldA.1, FieldA.2,
and FieldA.3, an invalid input error will be returned b/c FieldA.4 is
illegal. Things cannot change until FieldA.4 is modified.
In a worse scenario, suppose the default setting on the motherboard is
illegal for both FieldA.3 and FieldA.4. That means we will receive an
invalid input error for the config of FieldA.1 through FieldA.4.
Currently, this has been seen a very small minority of systems and
work arounds have been added for those systems.
Another similar fallout from this design is that the vendor must allow
"piecemeal" configuration. In other words, the vendor must allow a
subset of the fields to perhaps be configured "incorrectly" while the
other subset may be configured "correctly". Some vendors require that
fields be written "simultaneously", and do not support the ability to
alter configuration one by one.
Again, this has been seen a very small minority of systems and work
arounds have been added for those systems.
9) Dealing with workarounds
---------------------------
There is an admitted conflict in determining whether vendor compliance
issues should be handled automatically vs. a specified workaround.
On one hand, we would like for the tools to operate as simply for the
users as possible without the need to specify strange workarounds or
options on the command line. For example, we could detect vendor
product-IDs early in the protocol, and if necessary for a particular
vendor, turn on the workarounds.
On the other hand, some workarounds cannot be detected properly all of
the time. For example, the workaround may exist on one firmware
release vs. another firmware release. It may exist between one
product of a vendor vs. another product from the vendor. Another
example, is that while we can make a pretty decent guess what the
vendor intended, ultimately, there's no real way to know if the guess
is correct.
A number of these workarounds are due to vendor compliance problems
that are sometimes so intrusive (e.g. using a different hashing
algorithm for keys) they must require a workaround on the command line
b/c there is really no other way to handle it. However, some could be
handled seemlessly, but would require altered behavior to handle the
"common case" or "lowest common denominator" of all IPMI protocols.
The general rule that I've come to is that if the workaround changes
some "normal" or "good" behavior, it must require a specific
workaround on the command line. Although it may/will be annoying to a
number of users, I feel it is better for the long term. It can
hopefully also pressure vendors into fixing their implementations down
the road.
As an example, on some motherboards, we found that System Event Log
(SEL) records reported an invalid sensor generator ID. We found that
the reported generator ID was shifted off by one. Thus, as a
workround, if a SDR entry cannot be found for a respective system
event, we will also search for a SDR entry using the generator ID
shifted by one, and if the SDR entry is found, we assume the original
generator ID was just off by one and we use the located SDR record.
This workaround is seemless and doesn't involve an option on the
command line.
In contrast, we found on some other motherboards that some SEL records
report an invalid event record type. Unlike the above situation,
there is no additional information from this record that can give us
any indication if we parsed it correctly or incorrectly. As far as we
can tell, it just might be an OEM specific record. Therefore, we
implemented a workaround called "assumesystemevent", which the user
can specify to assume a valid system event record no matter what.
Admittedly, the area is grey, and at some point, it's a judgement call
:-)
10) Dealing with OEM extensions
-------------------------------
Similar to the "Dealing with workarounds" question above, there is a
similar question of how to deal with OEM extensions. Should code
automatically detect the manufacturer and product to determine if OEM
extensions can be handled or should be output?
We would like the tools to operate as simply for the users without
specifying options on the command line. However, can we trust that a
vendor will implement their extensions consistently across
motherboards, products, or even firmware revisions?
The general decision is that there will be an option for the user to
specify if they would like OEM interpreted output if available. Many
FreeIPMI tools come with a --interpret-oem-data option for this
situation. If a motherboard is specifically supported by FreeIPMI,
the user is free to use and trust the OEM support. However, if OEM
extensions happen to work for a unlisted motherboard, the user must
take the output with some grain of salt.
