Add NULL Check to allow IpmiSendCommandInternal flow through avoinding assert as routine does not consider NULL para…

[anandakrishnanl]

Description

IpmiSendCommandInternal did not allow NULL parameter for ResponseData and ResponseDataSize Parameters.

Expected Behavior:
NULL can be passed as parameter for some specific IPMI commands.

FIX APPLIED:
Allow IpmiSendCommandInternal to allow a NULL parameter as long as ResponseDataSize is zero.

• Impacts functionality?
  • Functionality - Does the change ultimately impact how firmware functions?
  • Examples: Add a new library, publish a new PPI, update an algorithm, ...
• Impacts security?
  • Security - Does the change have a direct security impact on an application,
    flow, or firmware?
  • Examples: Crypto algorithm change, buffer overflow fix, parameter
    validation improvement, ...
• Breaking change?
  • Breaking change - Will anyone consuming this change experience a break
    in build or boot behavior?
  • Examples: Add a new library class, move a module to a different repo, call
    a function in a new library class in a pre-existing module, ...
• Includes tests?
  • Tests - Does the change include any explicit test code?
  • Examples: Unit tests, integration tests, robot tests, ...
• Includes documentation?
  • Documentation - Does the change contain explicit documentation additions
    outside direct code modifications (and comments)?
  • Examples: Update readme file, add feature readme file, link to documentation
    on an a separate Web page, ...

How This Was Tested

Tested with Oem Specific Ipmi Command. Prior to change, cpu exception occurred. After fix, system was able to continue.

Integration Instructions

N/A

[cfernald]

Could you update the title to indicate this is allowing for a null instance of the response on a send? Right now its unclear if you are adding a check to prevent or allow this.

[anandakrishnanl]

Could you update the title to indicate this is allowing for a null instance of the response on a send? Right now its unclear if you are adding a check to prevent or allow this.

Modified the Title

[anandakrishnanl]

@anandakrishnanl please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="AMI"

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 27.92%. Comparing base (0c52422) to head (80a5452).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #243      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   27.85%   27.92%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        2987     2990       +3     
  Branches      275      277       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          832      835       +3     
  Misses       2149     2149              
  Partials        6        6              

Flag	Coverage Δ
IpmiFeaturePkg	27.92% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.