Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ad-hoc TFTP server driver #1419

Open
flxzt opened this issue Jun 11, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Ad-hoc TFTP server driver #1419

flxzt opened this issue Jun 11, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@flxzt
Copy link
Contributor

flxzt commented Jun 11, 2024

It would be nice to be able to start a tftp server in an ad-hoc way on a remote machine through a driver when it is needed in addition to the current TFTPProvider <-> TFTPProviderDriver resource/driver pair which requires an existing deployment.

This would make the delopyment of the infastructure easier and allows for more flexibility and robustness when for example booting over TFTP in a strategy. Then it could be ensured that for example the path of the TFTP server always matches the uboot tftp string.

@jluebbe
Copy link
Member

jluebbe commented Jun 11, 2024

This is (currently) by design, as it naturally allows using one TFTP (/HTTP/NFS) server for multiple places. When starting per Resource, we'd need to allocate ports per instance, which also complicates usage on the target. I'm skeptical it worth that complexity just to avoid a per-exporter TFTP service.

@flxzt
Copy link
Contributor Author

flxzt commented Jun 11, 2024

I understand the reservations about adding too much complexity to the framework from the perspective of maintainability.

Only as a note from my perspective as a user: what I had in mind: couldn't there be a {TFTP/HTTP/NFS}ServerManager that allocates unique ports and gives them back as part of the driver API? Then the user could retrieve the port to construct for example u-boot tftp boot commands.
Similar to how SyncedFile gives back the path for the created file instead of "being told" the path, ensuring avoiding collisions

The reason why I am suggesting this is: because in one of my test setups the DUT can't be booted directly from the exporter, it only can communicate with a second device. A driver that starts an ad-hoc TFTP server on a remote system could be used a lot easier to use than a "proper" tftpd deployment. The only requirement would then be that the ftfpd binary is present on this second device

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants