IPMI Set LAN Configuration Parameters

[Tom Joseph]

Hello,

There is a patch up for applying the network settings, with this patch 
it would not require set channel access command to apply the changes.
A timer kicks in everytime set-complete happens, and the network 
settings are applied once the timer expires.

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/#/q/topic:2932

Regards,
Tom

On Thursday 15 February 2018 02:23 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
> On 14-Feb-2018 12:32 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>> I thought you had to explicitly set in_progress with the ipmitool?  My
>> own ipmitool utility is implemented as you described where it doesn't
>> assume anything about your intent, just follows the actions.
>
> Currently, ipmitool (incorrectly) sets the "set in progress" bit for 
> every lan configuration parameter it sets. Given how the CLI interface 
> only allows the user to specify a single parameter at a time, it might 
> be smart to have ipmitool also expose controls for the "set in 
> progress" bit. Alternately, providing a way to to specify multiple 
> parameters in a single call would be good. Something like:
>
> ipmitool lan set 1 ipaddr 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.0.0 gateway 1.2.0.1 
> dns 1.2.1.1 ipmitool lan set 1 ipsrc dhcp
>
> and it would automatically set and use the set in progress bit correctly.
>
> And ipmid could then take two actions, depending on how this bit is 
> (ab)used:
> 1) if only a single command is wrapped up in the 
> set-in-progress/set-complete, then employ a timeout so that after some 
> amount of time, all the queued commands get applied.
> 2) if multiple commands get wrapped up in the 
> set-in-progress/set-complete, then apply the command set when the 
> set-complete is received.
>
> Getting ipmitool changed to have correct behavior will take some 
> doing, so we will need to be able to deal with its incorrect behavior 
> for now. But also responding to correct behavior can make tools that 
> employ that behavior work even better (with no timeout delays).
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> --Vernon
>
>> There's definitely the possibility of thrashing.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Dave Cobbley
>> <david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> Do you have any concerns about ipmitool constantly flushing the 
>>> network as
>>> it sets & unsets the complete bit inbetween parameters,
>>> i.e. if you are setting 4 different parameters from a script?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this brings a lot of thrashing to the to the ipmi 
>>> network
>>> stack or network manager.
>>>
>>> Seems like it would be prudent to fix ipmitool upstream to allow you 
>>> to set
>>> multiple parameters, in addition to the ipmi stack.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I personally have found this non-standard implementation a bit
>>>> unpleasant, as it requires using a different command to basically
>>>> flush it.  I am planning to implement it such that setting in progress
>>>> before and complete after is how it all gets flushed instead of a
>>>> timeout, since that approach reads more correct given the
>>>> specification.  And really it's just about literally calling a
>>>> subroutine to flush everything when the in_progress bit is set to
>>>> completed, and removing the code from "access on"
>>>>
>>>> If you're interested to do what I've just described, I don't think
>>>> you'll get any push-back.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Dave Cobbley
>>>> <david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that when using ipmitool lan set <channel> <parameter>, the
>>>>> openbmc stack does not apply the settings. This seems like a 
>>>>> non-standard
>>>>> implementation. While using ipmitool as the standard is not quite
>>>>> correct,
>>>>> customers do expect it to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> After sending any sort of lan set command with ipmitool, the changes
>>>>> don't
>>>>> appear to stick and this message shows up in the journal:
>>>>>      "Use Set Channel Access command to apply"
>>>>>
>>>>> I know IPMI 2.0 is a little ambiguous about implementation 
>>>>> specifics, but
>>>>> I
>>>>> believe the intention was to utilize the "Set In Progress" bit 
>>>>> (Parameter
>>>>> 0)
>>>>> while doing work, and use "Set Complete" when you are finished to 
>>>>> flush
>>>>> the
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To work around ipmitool constantly setting and unsetting the "Set In
>>>>> Progress" bit in between every parameter applied, some BMC stacks
>>>>> accumulate
>>>>> network changes over a period of time and apply after a timeout - 
>>>>> this is
>>>>> also compatible with ipmitool's non-standard use of the "Set In 
>>>>> Progress"
>>>>> bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a plan to circle back and change this functionality to 
>>>>> work with
>>>>> ipmitool in the future?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Dave Cobbley
>>>>>
>>>
>