On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:36 -0400, Al Chu wrote: > > Hey Carol, > > > Concerns went beyond that of a remote user unintentionally wreaking > > havoc (although that was brought up ;-}. One main issue is that the > > watchdog timer is simply not safe to be used in the remote manner > > suggested -- that resetting the timer remotely is unreliable. > > I agree that it's not safe to be used remotely. So instead of eliminating > the set watchdog command, how about just not allowing it to be run when the > interface is 'lan' or 'lan20'?? > > Just my 2 cents. > > Al > Hi Al,
We're not really eliminating anything -- specific watchdog set support has never been in ipmitool (not counting the unfinished alpha code introduced since 1.8.9 into the CVS tree). Any watchdog set command can still be sent either in-band or out-of-band via the raw command interface. I believe one of the earlier arguments for watchdog "set" capability was for adding some sort of remote watchdog reset capability to help in resetting boxes that are lacking (mandatory) chassis power commands. Although it's an unintended use of watchdog to merely reset a box (and therefore a bit hackish), the arguments indicate that it could be helpful for deficient implementations to have the "watchdog powercycle" command I described earlier. Any comments from anyone on whether or not they are desperate for that functionality? I wouldn't want to add it unless compelled (and unless there were no major objections :-} . Thanks much, Carol ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
