Re: [PATCH][WiP] native DHCPv4 support in net_bootp

[Andrei Borzenkov]

19.03.2016 04:03, Rivard, Matthew T пишет:
> Thanks for the patch, finally had an opportunity to apply it and test
> it.   It did require disabling -Werror in order for the diff that was
> originally supplied to compile, as there's a couple of variables that
> were throwing uninitialized warnings.
> 

Build log would be helpful.

> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Andrei Borzenkov
> [mailto:address@hidden Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 7:42 AM 
> To: Rivard, Matthew T <address@hidden>; The development
> of GNU GRUB <address@hidden> Subject: [PATCH][WiP] native DHCPv4
> support in net_bootp
> 
> 14.10.2015 23:09, Andrei Borzenkov пишет:
>> 14.10.2015 21:09, Rivard, Matthew T пишет:
>>> Just going by these definitions of bootp and dhcp here: 
>>> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc781243%28v=ws.10%29.asp
>>>
>>> 
x
>>> 
>>> The net_bootp only works with a bootp enabled scope on the dhcp
>>> server after chaining from iPXE to grub2.   Without a "bootp"
>>> scope setup on the dhcp, calling net_bootp on the adapter fails
>>> to get an IP address.
>>> 
>>> So, I guess I could more clearly word that the bootp protocol
>>> works when calling net_bootp, but standard dhcp isn't.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hmm ... you are right; we are actually doing BOOTP here, not DHCP.
>> 
> 
> This patch adds support for native DHCPv4 and removes requirement for
> BOOTP compatibility support in DHCP server.
> 
> This is work in progress, but this works for me in test environment.
> 
> Patch changes net_bootp to implement full DHCP transaction. it still
> /should/ work with BOOTP pure server (untested, I do not have one).
> It also re-implements option processing to support overloaded fields
> and consolidates it in one place.
> 
> What is currently not implemented
> 
> - per interface, per transaction stage retransmit timer. Will be
> done.
> 
> - DHCP server selection. We take first DHCPOFFER or BOOTPREPLY. No
> plans to implement.
> 
> - DHCP option concatenation (RFC3396). I do not expect to hit it in
> real life; could be implemented relatively easy if needed.
> 
> - client identifier (RFC6842). I do not expect to hit it in real
> life; could be added easily if needed.
>