On the state of documentation
bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com
Sat Nov 18 05:02:46 AEDT 2017
> On Nov 17, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Tanous, Ed <ed.tanous at intel.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stewart Smith [mailto:stewart at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:11 PM
>> To: Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com>; Tanous, Ed
>> <ed.tanous at intel.com>
>> Cc: OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org>
>> Subject: Re: On the state of documentation
>> Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> writes:
>>>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 10:03 PM, Stewart Smith
>> <stewart at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> "Tanous, Ed" <ed.tanous at intel.com> writes:
>>>>> I believe that the lack of good documentation is a symptom of a
>>>>> issue: OpenBMC is not targeting a public specification with its
>>>>> REST interface. This has led to certain engineering flexibilities
>>>>> with the interface that, while useful for short term to "get
>>>>> something that works", make it very difficult to target openbmc an
>> evolving platform.
>>>>> In the current model, DBus specifications are pushed directly to the
>>>>> end user, which means (nearly) every DBus spec change results in a
>>>>> change to end user interfaces. I don't believe this is sustainable
>>>>> in the long run, given the number of platforms that this is
>>>>> targeting and the need for reproducible APIs between systems.
>>> No disagreement here. The project could really could use a Redfish
>>> and full IPMI implementation.
>>>>> that middle to long term we should transition away from these
>>>>> interfaces for end-user facing functionality, and move toward
>>> Words like 'transition away' and 'move toward' are kind of freaking me
>>> out a little. Are you suggesting that OpenBMC can _only_ have a
>>> Redfish implementation? Any other REST API implementation would
>>> be…banned from the project? Or am I reading into it too much?
> No, I'm in no way arguing that we need to only have one external API. Banning certain APIs or components is something that I don't think fit the needs of the project either.
That's good news. Thanks for clearing that up.
> Overall, I would like new and existing code to be able to treat dbus as an openbmc private API, not an end user facing public API. Said another way, DBus api changes should be possible without changing external system interfaces.
> Given the fact that the existing REST API is simply a direct connection to dbus, it seems to stand in the way of this goal.
Maybe. But this comes down to how the user of OpenBMC is using the
What if I state it like this? Breaking the external API provided by the
direct-connect REST API can never be the rationale for rejecting internal
DBus API changes.
> Long term, I would like to see the existing dbus REST API moved to machine specific layers for the machines that want to use them, and remove it as a reference implementation.
But it is the reference implementation of the direct-connect API.
I want to poke at what it means exactly to move something to a machine
- Does it mean the code repository is not in the GitHub openbmc
- Does it mean the recipe for the application is not in meta-phosphor?
- Does it mean the recipe is in meta-phosphor, its just not included
in an image by default (explicitly turned on in other layers) ?
- Something else?
> Maybe I'm stepping over the line? Maybe it's too early to start talking transition plane, when the replacement components are in their infancy?
> I'm not asking for a commitment here, just would like to see what other people's thoughts are.
I’m sorry if I’m putting you on the defensive. It's not my intent. The intent
is to ask probing questions to help me understand where you are coming from.
>> I'd support multiple interfaces (after all, IPMI and RedFish are multiple ones
>> anyway, and IPMI is probably going to take a few more years to disappear)
>>> Like I said, I too agree we need a Redfish and IPMI implementation in
>>> That said, what reason is there to get rid of the existing DBus<->REST
>>> translation server? It’s not as if its a maintenance burden. It
>>> isn’t as if anyone is making people use it in their products. Its there.
>>> You can use it or not use it. When we have an IPMI or Redfish
>>> implementation, I’ll be the first in line (well maybe second after
>>> Stewart) to tell my employer to turn it off in their products.
>>> That isn’t the same thing as removing it from the project altogether.
>> It might be useful for debug to keep around "forever"?
> For debug, yes, I completely agree that server is useful and we can leave it in the repo, I'm less worried about debug, or giving developers and maintainers the option, more worried about the direct linkage from Dbus to end-user facing APIs, especially in a component that's labeled reference, and added to openbmc builds by default.
If you submitted a patch that turns it off by default (and turns it back on
in all the machine layers, to maintain functional parity with what is there
today), I wouldn't expect any push-back.
>>>>> Some important key points that I think should be driven by the new
>>>>> 1. Rest interfaces should not be driven by the underlying DBus
>> interfaces, nor the backend implementation language.
>>> This reads like policy for someone using OpenBMC to build a BMC stack.
>>> I would rephrase it to:
>>> XYZ corp cannot use any REST implementations provided by OpenBMC that
>>> are driven by the underlying DBus interfaces in XYZ corp products
>>> making use of OpenBMC.
>>> Do you see the difference?
> Fair point. Yes, all these goals are things that Intel needs today for production interfaces. I was trying to see if others have similar requirements.
> My end goal here is not to prescribe what people are allowed to build, your rewording of the next point seems to render this one moot.
>> I'd say "The OpenBMC REST API is not meant to be a stable API to be
>> consumed. It exists exclusively for debug and development efforts of
>> OpenBMC. It may, in future, completely change or disappear."
>> From someone consuming it, that's certainly been the experience at least :)
> That's a much more fair wording. On the other hand, there is a lot of precedence for users relying on "debug" APIs for production functionality, then complaining when the function breaks or disappears. I don't have a solution here, just a comment.
Agreed. Is this solvable by turning it off by default and big red warning
>>>>> 2. Interfaces should not contain any "backdoor" type APIs that allow
>> white box style access to internal APIs. Anything breaking the black box
>> model should be done in a machine specific layer or configuration.
>>>>> 3. APIs should give the minimum required amount of information to
>> fulfill the end user use case.
>>>>> 4. Interfaces should be backed by the system level security policy (PAM
>> users in the current model).
>>>>> 5. Where possible, the implementations should follow an existing
>>>>> specification. In the cases where the requirements are not
>>>>> supported, the api should follow the style of the supporting
>>>>> interface (Think redfish OEM command support)
>>> I have the same reaction to 2-6 as I did for 1. These are policies on
>>> _use_ of OpenBMC. Right? Not what the contributors to the project are
>> allowed to do.
> Brainstorming for a second; What if each of these were prefixed with "Reference components shall: "? Yes, some of these are a little more prescriptive than I'd like for an open project, but we need some way to convey that certain components are production ready, secure to modern standards, and are supportable long term.
One thing to keep in mind as we brainstorm is that there is a difference between
a component being production ready, secure and supportable, and usage of that
component in a larger stack.
For instance we could get to an impeccable implementation of the direct-connect API,
with no security bugs, production ready, and easily maintainable. There isn’t
a problem until a user decides to include that application in their stack.
> I'd much rather see reference components fall into that category than to create a new system for classification.
Another straw man - What if we split the phosphor layer in two or more?
The layers could have different themes. The core layer, in a vacuum, could
aspire to have a perfect security model. Something like the direct-connect
API would go in a different layer, since its use has potential security
ramifications and other badness.
> With that said, if most of these needs aren't common amongst a majority of the platforms, then I'm happy to do the "XYZ corp" style prescription. Just to be clear, these are thoughts, and learnings pulled from previous production BMC systems I've worked on. I'm certain my biases have bled into some of the points.
> I was not intending to pose these as new hard rules. Guideline is even a strong word. "What Ed wants to see" might be a better description at this point.
>>> My worldview is that each one of these bullet points would cost the
>>> project a potential contributor. Somewhere, someone is going to want
>>> to do one of those things. Why not let them, when the only thing you
>>> have to do is not use their code?
>> Maybe guidelines more than rules?
> I should've made that much more clear. Yes, these were intended to be ideas for how I'd like to see certain interfaces evolve. I had no intention of prescribing what people are allowed to do. I question if I even want to prescribe rules for reference components, but I'd at least have a discussion about it.
>> I'm sure there's exceptions, but there's unlikely to be anything really exist
>> beyond RedFish and IPMI... If there is, I'd say it's up to you if you want to
>> include it in the base/reference distribution and if this will create value or just
>> more work :)
>> Stewart Smith
>> OPAL Architect, IBM.
thx - brad
More information about the openbmc