From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yyd6M3XcbzDrWk for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:40:59 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vBF4dSK6092571 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:40:56 -0500 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ev6p91pe4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:40:55 -0500 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:40:55 -0500 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e11.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.198) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:40:54 -0500 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id vBF4erai46465084; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:40:53 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC03112047; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:39:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.102.53.225]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C8693112034; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A93A94EC6A2; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:40:50 +1100 (AEDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Andrew Geissler , Michael Tritz Cc: OpenBMC Maillist Subject: Re: Host factory reset - version priorities In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:40:50 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17121504-2213-0000-0000-0000024AB411 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008206; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000244; SDB=6.00960405; UDB=6.00485793; IPR=6.00740420; BA=6.00005741; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00018553; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2017-12-15 04:40:55 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17121504-2214-0000-0000-000058726E86 Message-Id: <871sjwwqlp.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-15_02:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1712150064 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.24 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:41:00 -0000 Andrew Geissler writes: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michael Tritz wrote: >> What should be happening on a host factory reset? >> >> Suppose we have a machine with two host versions uploaded - one active, one >> not. Currently, the host factory reset will clear the persistence files with >> which we store the priority information for these versions. The next time >> the host software updater is started, both versions are left with priority >> of 255, and one of the two (maybe it's random, maybe it's based on upload >> order) is selected as the active host version. >> >> Is this the desired behavior? Would it be better to instead retain the >> version priority through a reset, or is clearing that setting under the >> scope of "restoring factory settings"? > > I do not thing we want to lose the priority on a factory reset. We > have to ensure we always > use the firmware level that the user last activated, no matter what. > The "spirit" of a factory > reset is to clear any changes done by the user to defaults of the > firmware. Ensuring we boot with the right > level of firmware is still required after a factory reset. I'm with Andrew on this one, I would think that it should keep the current firmware versions and the current priorities of them. *IF* we had the concept of something like a factory or golden image, then *maybe* it would make sense to reset to it. But considering we don't have that (at least currently), I think the behaviour should be to reset everything as if the machine came out of the factory with the currently active images loaded (i.e. do *not* reset priorities). -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.