Request new repo for IBM-specific code: ibm-acf

Joseph Reynolds jrey at
Sat May 1 15:30:23 AEST 2021

On 4/30/21 8:29 AM, Patrick Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:09:58PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
>> So ... does the GitHub OpenBMC organization host vendor specific repos
>> (perhaps, or does the source code go
>> somewhere else (such as IBM's public fork in
> I'm strongly opposed to dumping-ground repositories like
> "<company>-misc".  We approved exactly one of those and the rationale we
> were given was they had a bunch of existing code they were going to work
> at getting upstreamed, but wanted a place to be able to interact with
> their vendors in the interrim.  We should not be having *new* code going
> into that or any other "misc" repository.
> We have generally not wanted OpenBMC-oriented code in non-openbmc-org
> repositories that are then picked up by openbmc/openbmc recipes.  If you
> have a generally applicable library that isn't tied to openbmc in any
> way, or especially one that already has good usage outside of openbmc,
> then another github org seems reasonable.  That isn't what you have
> here.
> It sounds like you have a good definition here of what you want to do,
> so I'm fine with `openbmc/pam-ibm-acf`.  I don't see any reason we
> cannot host `openbmc/<company>-<feature>` repositories for things which
> are company specific, as long as those repositories are only picked up
> by your meta-<company> layer.


Thanks.  That works for me.  I propose a new repo ibm-acf which will 
have 4 related parts:
1. The Linux-PAM pam_ibmacf module (targeted to run on the BMC)
2. A tool to create and read ACF files (targeted to run on the build host)
3. Common source library for use by the two items above and by the BMC's 
function to upload & validate an ACF file.
4. Absolutely minimal test cases and documentation.

The idea is the meta-ibm layer could optionally pick up the pam_ibmacf 
piece and configure it into the Linux-PAM stack, then the tester can 
create or inject a key pair, and use the provided tool to create an ACF 
file for upload to the BMC.


> [[
>     I think is / will be additional work going on in the background to
>     come to better consensus and document any rules around repository
>     creation.  This is my current opinion.
> ]]

More information about the openbmc mailing list