Discussion on IPMI provider libraries

[Patrick Williams]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:59:08PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > The privilege provided by each command is a registration parameter and it
> > is consumed only by net-ipmid.
> 
> 
> That's fine, but in that case it should not go in the callback; it should
> be maintained and enforced by net-ipmid when it looks up a handler.

Neither net-ipmid nor host-ipmid intrinsically know all of the IPMI
commands that will or may be registered.  This is especially true for
OEM commands where the privilege level is determined by the command.

Are the privilege levels defined by the IPMI spec?  If so, I don't see
anything incorrect about each provider having it.  If not, it is
something that we have defined at build time, correct?  Would it be
acceptable to have multiple symlink locations for net-ipmid providers?
ie. /usr/lib/phosphor-net-ipmid/user/ ,
/usr/lib/phosphor-net-ipmid/admin/ , etc.  I suspect we would need to
break libraries up more because currently a single library provides
commands at different privilege levels.

-- 
Patrick Williams
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20161115/b024ca93/attachment.sig>