Future features of phosphor-ipmi-flash
mine260309 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 4 13:03:27 AEST 2019
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:43 PM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 PM Neeraj Ladkani <neladk at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > This is great. In this case, we should be able to make use of this design for all BMC managed components ( FPGA, CPLD and PSU FW) by providing verification service, and an update service. Basically TFTP the image and then call the dbus methods
> Yes, with phosphor-ipmi-flash, you can send down effectively any
> binary you wish and a signature (or without a signature) and then
> trigger actions against it, to update anything. If you do wish to use
> it very generically, let me know what you have in mind for a timeline,
> and I can plan out the changes. To make the codebase very generic is
> somewhat trivial at this point, it's just a matter of knowing what may
> come in the future enough to provide a sufficiently flexible schema
> for the json.
Assuming all BMC managed components' update manager will use the same API (at
least PSU firmware updater will do), then if phosphor-ipmi-flash eventually
invokes the DBus APIs defined in xyz.openbmc_proejct.Software, it should be
trivial to support different kinds of components.
> > How do we specify if we want to update only kernel or rofs or rwfs?
> I imagine from reading the code that you can do this, by only dropping
> those files into the tarball and leaving out the others. Maybe the
> MANIFEST file's contents specify what's in it in a formatted way? I
> assume so, I don't use bmc-code-mgmt, so I can't say without reading
> more of the code, presumably Lei knows.
For now, the bmc-code-mgmt (for static layout) hard-code the partitions to be
because typically a code update shall update all the partitions to
But the part could be changed to support separated partitions if we all agree
there are such use cases.
> > Neeraj
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openbmc <openbmc-bounces+neladk=microsoft.com at lists.ozlabs.org> On Behalf Of Lei YU
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:18 PM
> > To: Patrick Venture <venture at google.com>
> > Cc: OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org>; Adriana Kobylak <anoo at us.ibm.com>
> > Subject: Re: Future features of phosphor-ipmi-flash
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:06 AM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Uploading the BIOs via phosphor-ipmi-flash is available for review,
> > > but it's not tied into another daemon. One must provide a
> > > verification service, and an update service.
> > >
> > > I'd like to provide the option to leverage phosphor-bmc-code-mgmt. It
> > > looks like in this codebase there is a notion of a signed image, but
> > > the signature is attached. It also looks like, there's some version
> > > information that's meant to parsable and involved. I haven't had a
> > > chance to play with it.
> > >
> > > With phosphor-ipmi-flash the hash file portion is optional. Because
> > > phosphor-ipmi-flash doesn't define anything beyond the sequence of
> > > calls, one could use burn_my_bmc and send the hash down separately and
> > > then the verification target could trigger something that concatenates
> > > and triggers the bmc code mgmt signature check.
> > >
> > > It should be somewhat straightforward to tie the two codebases
> > > together (as an optional usage).
> > >
> > > If someone has experience with programming against
> > > phosphor-bmc-code-mgmt and wants to help with this or at least point
> > > me at what I need to know, I'd be more than happy.
> > >
> > > From reading the docs with the dbus interface definitions, I think I
> > > have the general idea -- drop the file into the place it expects the
> > > file (a configuration option) and then call the dbus methods.
> > Exactly, the whole process of BMC code update is:
> > 1. Put a tarball in /tmp/images/ (via REST API, TFTP, or scp) 2. An object will be generated on DBus to represent the image; 3. Invoke a DBus call to set RequestedActivation property to "Active"
> > 4. Reboot.
> > Be noted that the tarball consists of following files:
> > image-u-boot
> > image-kernel
> > image-rofs
> > image-rwfs
> > MANIFEST
> > publickey
> > image-u-boot.sig
> > image-kernel.sig
> > image-rofs.sig
> > image-rwfs.sig
> > MANIFEST.sig
> > publickey.sig
> Interesting, so it doesn't have to contain all those individual pieces
> but could just contain an image-bmc (which has all the pieces) and
> then the signature file.
As explained above, for now the code is hard-coded to require the tarball to
contain all the partitions, and does not support image-bmc's tarball.
It will get a Failure if any image-<partition> is missing.
> So in the case of the quanta-q71l we can't use a tarball approach
> because there isn't enough memory free to hold the tarball, and the
> untarred contents at the same time, and I can't use the /tmp/images
> folder because the "mv" command will create a copy before moving and I
> also then run out of memory. The /tmp/images is a configuration
> variable in the code-mgmt application, so that part I can get around.
> Others aspects, not so much.
I saw some discussion in mailing list before, I did not know if someone worked
Could you share how the bmc code update works on systems with limited RAM?
Does it like "streaming", that fetches a few blocks, erase a few, and write a
> However, I want people who are using bmc-code-mgmt already to be able
> to use phosphor-ipmi-flash/burn_my_bmc to send down their payloads.
> In this case, it can be done very trivially -->
> Note: this isn't a ubi tarball update, but that is also supported by
> bmc-code-mgmt (I think).
Yes, the same DBus APIs support UBI tarball and static tarball.
> Lei, to use phosphor-ipmi-flash for this, you'd have the verify object
> in phosphor-ipmi-flash trigger the "apply" property (and check on the
> result somehow) -- I think I saw there's a property for the result.
> And you'd have to configure the temporary location variable to be
> /tmp/images/ -- you could then send the tarball down to something
> like, blob:/flash/statictar and it would know to trigger the things.
> -- It will only take one patchset to let burn_my_bmc take any "type"
> field that then gets translated directly into the blob. So today it
> doesn't check for a /flash/statictar blob, but it could easily check
> for any blob specified. --
> phosphor-ipmi-flash expects an image handler, where the bytes are
> written, a verification object, and an update object.
> - where the bytes are written, there is a file handler object that
> will blindly write bytes, could be used trivially for this just set
> destination to whatever.
> - the verification object could trigger the dbus call, it just needs
> to be able to report success/failure
> - there is a reboot update object provided that's just "available"
> already because we use static image updating presently.
I did not read the phosphor-ipmi-flash code, but the idea here should work.
* The file handler object writes the tarball bytes into a file;
* The verification object triggers a DBus call to activate the image;
* Then the BMC needs a reboot for the image to be written to the flash. I
expect the "reboot update object" here is to reboot the BMC.
> Lei, if I were to provide you some patches in a couple weeks are you
> in a position to test? I'll help you configure your system. I'll be
> busy for the next week, but after that I would like to roll this out
> for those already using bmc-code-mgmt.
Yes, I would like to test this, in-band code update is good to have :)
> ***Provided the bmc-code-mgmt can report whether it successfully
> verified the image against the signature(s). I think it does, and if
> not, I bet it would be easy to add such a property and enum in
> phosphor-dbus-interfaces to support this extension.
For now, if the verification of the signature fails, the BMC:
1. Report an event log;
2. Checks `FieldModeEnabled` property in `/xyz/openbmc_project/software`
* If it's true, set the "Activation" property to `Failed` state, and do not
update the code.
* If it's false, continue the code update.
More information about the openbmc