Re: [Etherboot-developers] DHCP option Bootfile name and extension path

[Vasil V. <vas...@sy...>]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Ken Yap wrote:

> >> I have one question, what happens when option overload (52) is present?
> >> I suppose that the definition of KERNEL_BUF then fails badly.
> >
> >Option overload (52) is not currently supported by Etherboot. It can be
> >trivially supported and I have implemented it. KERNEL_BUF is not a problem
> >even then within Etherboot. It becomes a problem when the bootp structure is
> >passed to loaded image, which then may modify it and return to Etherboot to
> >retry and possibly load a different image. A few images, e.g. the nbi menus,
> >expect the KERNEL_BUF where it is at the moment, and implementing BOOTP/DHCP
> >option overload (52) will mean breaking them.
> >
> >If option overload (52) is required, then just copy the options to the end of
> >the buffer would be a solution compatible with the current API. So, I've
> >corrected the implementation and the result is the patch attached for
> >etherboot 5.0.11 (as of now CVS HEAD of etherboot 5.0).
> >
> >Any comments?
>
> I don't want to add new features for a 5.0 series in maintenance mode,
> i.e. only bug fixes and demonstrably safe changes are accepted. So I'll
> accept the first set of changes but would rather leave the situation
> w.r.t.  option 52 alone. I was just double checking with you that you
> didn't need option 52. But if you want to implement this feature for
> testing in 5.3 for backporting to 5.2 or incorporation in 5.4, that's ok
> with me.

I am not fast. I thought option 52 is required somehow.

> According to man dhcp-options, option 52 is automatically inserted by
> dhcpd when overflow happens and cannot be configured by the user.

If overflow happens, there is no space for these options in etherboot and the
loaded images, and my solutions won't work anyway. So, not much point in
implementing it anywhere yet without an API change.

--
Vasil