Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
> the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
> that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
> arose).
> 
> For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing

We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
how to fix that thought.

> from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
> criterion:

s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
> 
> "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
> a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> utilizing Xen."
> 
> and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
> from Final to Optional.
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!

I would prefer for it to remain as it is.

> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
> > the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
> > that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
> > arose).
> > 
> > For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
> 
> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
> how to fix that thought.

Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
notification?

> > from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
> > criterion:
> 
> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?

Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
so they got a bit conflated :)

> > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
> > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> > utilizing Xen."
> > 
> > and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
> > from Final to Optional.
> > 
> > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
> 
> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.

This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
- not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".

Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

Posting from gmail, so hopefully it doesn't send it as HTML..

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
>> > the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
>> > that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
>> > arose).
>> >
>> > For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
>>
>> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
>> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
>> how to fix that thought.
>
> Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
> testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
> announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
> subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
> notification?

That is it. I just hadn't know about it.
>
>> > from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
>> > criterion:
>>
>> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
>
> Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
> so they got a bit conflated :)
>
>> > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
>> > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
>> > utilizing Xen."
>> >
>> > and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
>> > from Final to Optional.
>> >
>> > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
>>
>> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>
> This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
> - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
> cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".

Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
place so I can be up-to-date.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> 
> > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > 
> > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
> > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
> > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> 
> Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
> place so I can be up-to-date.

Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > > 
> > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
> > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
> > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> > 
> > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
> > place so I can be up-to-date.
> 
> Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
> eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
> results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!

So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole cycle. I
think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
again.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Geoffrey Marr]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1806 bytes --]

Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM anywhere
other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an "Optional" one.

Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > > >
> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested
> regularly
> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the
> release
> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> > >
> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
> >
> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
>
> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole cycle. I
> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
> again.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> _______________________________________________
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3025 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Sumantro Mukherjee]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2512 bytes --]

Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com> wrote:

> Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
> anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
> "Optional" one.
>
> Geoff Marr
> IRC: coremodule
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
> adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested
>> regularly
>> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign
>> off
>> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the
>> release
>> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
>> > >
>> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
>> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
>> >
>> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
>> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
>> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
>>
>> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole cycle. I
>> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
>> again.
>> --
>> Adam Williamson
>> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
>> http://www.happyassassin.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>


-- 
//sumantro
Fedora QE
TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED <https://redhat.com/trusted>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5064 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:22:13PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.

Hi!

And that is thanks to one of the GRUB2 bugs that needs some love
from Peter Jones.

As without that bug being fixed - it is very difficult to test it - as you can't even load Xen!

I've asked the upstream GRUB maintainer to sheed some light on the 
confusion about multiboot2 + SecureBoot - hopefully that will resolve
the question.

My vote is to have it remain as is.

Thank you.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
> > anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
> > "Optional" one.
> >
> > Geoff Marr
> > IRC: coremodule
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
> > adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested
> >> regularly
> >> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign
> >> off
> >> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the
> >> release
> >> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> >> > >
> >> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
> >> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
> >> >
> >> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
> >> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
> >> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
> >>
> >> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole cycle. I
> >> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
> >> again.
> >> --
> >> Adam Williamson
> >> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> >> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> >> http://www.happyassassin.net
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >> List Archives:
> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> //sumantro
> Fedora QE
> TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED <https://redhat.com/trusted>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Steven Haigh]

(and sending to the list this time due to Geary being rather 
featureless mail client)

As one of those being caught by regressions upgrading F29 to F30 under 
Xen DomU's, I think this is a bad idea.

It shows that it wasn't tested, because it doesn't work. To me, this 
exposes weaknesses in the testing and the solution shouldn't be "The 
check fails, remove the check".

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:18 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
<konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:22:13PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
>>  Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.
> 
> Hi!
> 
> And that is thanks to one of the GRUB2 bugs that needs some love
> from Peter Jones.
> 
> As without that bug being fixed - it is very difficult to test it - 
> as you can't even load Xen!
> 
> I've asked the upstream GRUB maintainer to sheed some light on the
> confusion about multiboot2 + SecureBoot - hopefully that will resolve
> the question.
> 
> My vote is to have it remain as is.
> 
> Thank you.
>> 
>>  On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  > Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
>>  > anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
>>  > "Optional" one.
>>  >
>>  > Geoff Marr
>>  > IRC: coremodule
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
>>  > adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>  >> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>  >> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>>  >> > > >
>>  >> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and 
>> tested
>>  >> regularly
>>  >> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before 
>> we sign
>>  >> off
>>  >> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout 
>> the
>>  >> release
>>  >> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to 
>> the right
>>  >> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
>>  >> >
>>  >> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll 
>> keep an
>>  >> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and 
>> there are no
>>  >> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
>>  >>
>>  >> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole 
>> cycle. I
>>  >> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
>>  >> again.
>>  >> --
>>  >> Adam Williamson
>>  >> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>>  >> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT 
>> happyassassin . net
>>  >> http://www.happyassassin.net
>>  >> _______________________________________________
>>  >> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  >> To unsubscribe send an email to 
>> test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  >> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
>> https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>>  >> List Guidelines: 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>  >> List Archives:
>>  >> 
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  >>
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  > To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>>  > List Guidelines: 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>  > List Archives:
>>  > 
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>  >
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>>  //sumantro
>>  Fedora QE
>>  TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED 
>> <https://redhat.com/trusted>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Daniel Kiper]

Sorry for top posting...

FYI, I am on vacation right now. I will be back next week. So, if it is
not urgent I will explain all the stuff and update relevant bug at the
beginning of next week. Sorry for delay.

Daniel

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:44:37PM +1000, Steven Haigh wrote:
> (and sending to the list this time due to Geary being rather featureless
> mail client)
>
> As one of those being caught by regressions upgrading F29 to F30 under Xen
> DomU's, I think this is a bad idea.
>
> It shows that it wasn't tested, because it doesn't work. To me, this exposes
> weaknesses in the testing and the solution shouldn't be "The check fails,
> remove the check".
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:18 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:22:13PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> > >  Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > And that is thanks to one of the GRUB2 bugs that needs some love
> > from Peter Jones.
> >
> > As without that bug being fixed - it is very difficult to test it - as
> > you can't even load Xen!
> >
> > I've asked the upstream GRUB maintainer to sheed some light on the
> > confusion about multiboot2 + SecureBoot - hopefully that will resolve
> > the question.
> >
> > My vote is to have it remain as is.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > >
> > >  On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >  > Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
> > >  > anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
> > >  > "Optional" one.
> > >  >
> > >  > Geoff Marr
> > >  > IRC: coremodule
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
> > >  > adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  >> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >  >> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >  >> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > >  >> > > >
> > >  >> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and
> > > tested
> > >  >> regularly
> > >  >> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before
> > > we sign
> > >  >> off
> > >  >> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout
> > > the
> > >  >> release
> > >  >> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> > >  >> > >
> > >  >> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to
> > > the right
> > >  >> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
> > >  >> >
> > >  >> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll
> > > keep an
> > >  >> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and
> > > there are no
> > >  >> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
> > >  >>
> > >  >> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole
> > > cycle. I
> > >  >> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
> > >  >> again.
> > >  >> --
> > >  >> Adam Williamson
> > >  >> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > >  >> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT
> > > happyassassin . net
> > >  >> http://www.happyassassin.net
> > >  >> _______________________________________________
> > >  >> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > >  >> List Guidelines:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > >  >> List Archives:
> > >  >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  >>
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > >  > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  > To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > >  > List Guidelines:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > >  > List Archives:
> > >  > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >  >
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  //sumantro
> > >  Fedora QE
> > >  TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED
> > > <https://redhat.com/trusted>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> > https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Daniel Kiper]

I have not heard that Peter moved to the Oracle ;-))), so, changing his
address back to RedHat one. And dropping Fedora testing mailing list
address because I do not have permissions to send to it...

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:51:47AM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Sorry for top posting...
>
> FYI, I am on vacation right now. I will be back next week. So, if it is
> not urgent I will explain all the stuff and update relevant bug at the
> beginning of next week. Sorry for delay.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:44:37PM +1000, Steven Haigh wrote:
> > (and sending to the list this time due to Geary being rather featureless
> > mail client)
> >
> > As one of those being caught by regressions upgrading F29 to F30 under Xen
> > DomU's, I think this is a bad idea.
> >
> > It shows that it wasn't tested, because it doesn't work. To me, this exposes
> > weaknesses in the testing and the solution shouldn't be "The check fails,
> > remove the check".
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:18 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:22:13PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> > > >  Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > And that is thanks to one of the GRUB2 bugs that needs some love
> > > from Peter Jones.
> > >
> > > As without that bug being fixed - it is very difficult to test it - as
> > > you can't even load Xen!
> > >
> > > I've asked the upstream GRUB maintainer to sheed some light on the
> > > confusion about multiboot2 + SecureBoot - hopefully that will resolve
> > > the question.
> > >
> > > My vote is to have it remain as is.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > >  On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  > Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
> > > >  > anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
> > > >  > "Optional" one.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Geoff Marr
> > > >  > IRC: coremodule
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
> > > >  > adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  >> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > >  >> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > >  >> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > > >  >> > > >
> > > >  >> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and
> > > > tested
> > > >  >> regularly
> > > >  >> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before
> > > > we sign
> > > >  >> off
> > > >  >> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout
> > > > the
> > > >  >> release
> > > >  >> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> > > >  >> > >
> > > >  >> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to
> > > > the right
> > > >  >> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
> > > >  >> >
> > > >  >> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll
> > > > keep an
> > > >  >> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and
> > > > there are no
> > > >  >> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
> > > >  >>
> > > >  >> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole
> > > > cycle. I
> > > >  >> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
> > > >  >> again.
> > > >  >> --
> > > >  >> Adam Williamson
> > > >  >> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > > >  >> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT
> > > > happyassassin . net
> > > >  >> http://www.happyassassin.net
> > > >  >> _______________________________________________
> > > >  >> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > > test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > > https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > > >  >> List Guidelines:
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > >  >> List Archives:
> > > >  >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  >>
> > > >  > _______________________________________________
> > > >  > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  > To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > > >  > List Guidelines:
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > >  > List Archives:
> > > >  > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  --
> > > >  //sumantro
> > > >  Fedora QE
> > > >  TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED
> > > > <https://redhat.com/trusted>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xen-devel mailing list
> > > Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> > > https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Lars Kurth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7940 bytes --]

Hi all,

I am going to step in here with my hat as Xen Project community
manager. We had a discussion about this issue as part of last week's
community call. I CC'ed a number of stake-holders, which probably
should have been on the thread such as ITL (which builds QubesOS
on top of Fedora) and Michael A Young (the Xen package manager).

First of all apologies that this issue has lingered so long. Key
members of the community were not aware of the issues raised in
this thread, otherwise we would have acted earlier. With this in
mind, please in future raise issues with me, on xen-devel@,
committers@ or the Xen-Fedora package manager. The Xen Community
would like to see Fedora running as guest: in fact it would be
somewhat odd if there was a Xen-Dom0 package and guest support
didn't work. And there are some downstreams such as QubesOS,
which depend on this support.

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 13:45, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
>>> the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
>>> that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
>>> arose).
>>> 
>>> For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
>> 
>> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
>> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
>> how to fix that thought.
> 
> Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
> testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
> announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
> subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
> notification?

We discussed this at the community call and came to the conclusion that
we can run regular tests of Fedora RC's as part of our OSSTEST
infrastructure. Ian Jackson volunteered to implement this, but there
are some questions on
a) The installer (which we can handle ourselves)
b) When we would trigger a test - aka is there some trigger other than the
c) How would results best be reported back to Fedora

Apologies, I am not very familiar with how the Fedora Test group works.
Is there some documentation which would help integrate what you to with
the test system of another open source project?

>>> from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
>>> criterion:
>> 
>> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
> 
> Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
> so they got a bit conflated :)

Can we come to some arrangement, by which such issues get communicated
to the Xen Project earlier? Aka me, xen-devel@ or committers@

>>> "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
>>> a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
>>> utilizing Xen."
>>> 
>>> and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
>>> from Final to Optional.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
>> 
>> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> 
> This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
> - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
> cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".

Would the proposal above work for you? I think it satisfies what you are
looking for. We would also have someone who monitors these test results
pro-actively.

Then, there are the specific grub issues that need resolving
[A1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002
     (and a recently filed duplicate @
      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691559) caused by
      [A2])
[A2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700
[B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103

The first makes it harder to boot Fedora _dom0_ (but workarounds exist).
While it is unpleasant, it doesn't break the release criterion, but
probably has deterred people from testing. The second one [B1] is about
Fedora _domU_, which breaks the release criterion.

Marek and Michael had a discussion about these and there was also
a summary from Daniel.

== On [A1]/[A2] ==
Lack of GRUB2 multiboot2/module2 commands in Fedora/RH which does not
allow you load Xen as dom0 on EFI platforms with or without secure
boot. Here are some relevant snippets from the discussions:

"In general both modules were dropped due to CVE-2015-5281 (grub2:
modules built in on EFI builds that allow loading arbitrary code,
circumventing secure boot) [A3][A4]. Of course this makes sense
because we do not want to break UEFI secure boot. But this means
that you cannot boot Xen dom0 on UEFI platforms. The Multiboot2
protocol support is required to do that. Potentially you can
use xen.efi directly but AFAICT many people prefer to use GRUB2.
The CVE issue does not exist in GRUB2 upstream. It was fixed at
the end of 2019."

Is there any chance these can get upstreamed into Fedora/RH?

"However, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Another is a
requirement for additional set of patches for Xen which allow
you to load xen.efi instead of xen.gz using Mulitboot2. I
started work on it last year but it is currently stalled."

I have taken an action to get this resolved
(aka find someone to do the work).

[A3] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-5281
[A4] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-5281
[A5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01292.html

== On [B1] / grub2-switch-to-blscfg  ==
This issue is about Fedora _domU_ and breaks the release
criterion. And looks like, it wasn't tested at all.

"blscfg is okay in _dom0_ - it looks like the xen setup still
gets put in non-blscfg format, and doesn't seem to matter in
HVM _domU_."

"The big issue is _domU_ in PV which would need a fair amount
of work in pygrub to fix properly, including reading variables
from grubenv and extracting details from the loader files. This
is really something to be fixed on the Xen side ... I do keep
intending to have a look at it myself though I may not get around
to it."

Instead of fixing pygrub, it would be better, more future proof
and easier to "use pvgrub2 instead. To be honest, its very unclear
to me why would anyone want to use pygrub, when pvgrub2 exists.
pygrub is much more fragile (as it needs to re-implement a
parser for 3rd-party configuration format, without stable
specification) and less secure - it does that in dom0, including
mounting domU controlled disk.

That said, the pvgrub2 option also requires some work, because:
- Fedora grub2 packages do not include the "xen" target platform
- Non-Fedora grub2 package don't have blscfg support
- If we'd talk about PVH (which isn't the case here), it requires grub
  2.04, which is at RC1 and isn't packaged for Fedora yet"

That would be much simpler, if blscfg was upstreamed into grub2 by
Fedora community members. Do you know whether the Fedora has plans
to do this?

In any case, I have taken an action to get this resolved
(aka find someone to do the work).

@xen-devel: this should probably be discussed separately, such that
we don't flood test@fedoraproject with unnecessary traffic

== In Summary ==
I think we can find a way forward on the testing side. Would
the proposal work for you?

Resolving the current blockers, this seems to have been caused by a
lack of communication or not understanding the impact of the
grub2-switch-to-blscfg in Fedora. In any case, we are where we are.

Best Regards
Lars



[-- Attachment #1.2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Lars Kurth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8903 bytes --]

Apologies,
I mixed up some references
Lars

> On 13 May 2019, at 16:29, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xenproject.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am going to step in here with my hat as Xen Project community
> manager. We had a discussion about this issue as part of last week's
> community call. I CC'ed a number of stake-holders, which probably
> should have been on the thread such as ITL (which builds QubesOS
> on top of Fedora) and Michael A Young (the Xen package manager).
> 
> First of all apologies that this issue has lingered so long. Key
> members of the community were not aware of the issues raised in
> this thread, otherwise we would have acted earlier. With this in
> mind, please in future raise issues with me, on xen-devel@,
> committers@ or the Xen-Fedora package manager. The Xen Community
> would like to see Fedora running as guest: in fact it would be
> somewhat odd if there was a Xen-Dom0 package and guest support
> didn't work. And there are some downstreams such as QubesOS,
> which depend on this support.
> 
>> On 6 Jul 2017, at 13:45, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>> Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
>>>> the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
>>>> that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
>>>> arose).
>>>> 
>>>> For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
>>> 
>>> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
>>> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
>>> how to fix that thought.
>> 
>> Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
>> testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
>> announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
>> subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
>> notification?
> 
> We discussed this at the community call and came to the conclusion that
> we can run regular tests of Fedora RC's as part of our OSSTEST
> infrastructure. Ian Jackson volunteered to implement this, but there
> are some questions on
> a) The installer (which we can handle ourselves)
> b) When we would trigger a test - aka is there some trigger other than the
> c) How would results best be reported back to Fedora
> 
> Apologies, I am not very familiar with how the Fedora Test group works.
> Is there some documentation which would help integrate what you to with
> the test system of another open source project?
> 
>>>> from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
>>>> criterion:
>>> 
>>> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
>> 
>> Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
>> so they got a bit conflated :)
> 
> Can we come to some arrangement, by which such issues get communicated
> to the Xen Project earlier? Aka me, xen-devel@ or committers@
> 
>>>> "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
>>>> a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
>>>> utilizing Xen."
>>>> 
>>>> and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
>>>> from Final to Optional.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
>>> 
>>> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>> 
>> This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
>> - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
>> on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
>> cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> 
> Would the proposal above work for you? I think it satisfies what you are
> looking for. We would also have someone who monitors these test results
> pro-actively.
> 
> Then, there are the specific grub issues that need resolving
> [A1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002>
>     (and a recently filed duplicate @
>      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691559 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691559>) caused by
>      [A2])
> [A2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700>
> [B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103>

[A2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103
[B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700 

> 
> The first makes it harder to boot Fedora _dom0_ (but workarounds exist).
> While it is unpleasant, it doesn't break the release criterion, but
> probably has deterred people from testing. The second one [B1] is about
> Fedora _domU_, which breaks the release criterion.
> 
> Marek and Michael had a discussion about these and there was also
> a summary from Daniel.
> 
> == On [A1]/[A2] ==
> Lack of GRUB2 multiboot2/module2 commands in Fedora/RH which does not
> allow you load Xen as dom0 on EFI platforms with or without secure
> boot. Here are some relevant snippets from the discussions:
> 
> "In general both modules were dropped due to CVE-2015-5281 (grub2:
> modules built in on EFI builds that allow loading arbitrary code,
> circumventing secure boot) [A3][A4]. Of course this makes sense
> because we do not want to break UEFI secure boot. But this means
> that you cannot boot Xen dom0 on UEFI platforms. The Multiboot2
> protocol support is required to do that. Potentially you can
> use xen.efi directly but AFAICT many people prefer to use GRUB2.
> The CVE issue does not exist in GRUB2 upstream. It was fixed at
> the end of 2019."
> 
> Is there any chance these can get upstreamed into Fedora/RH?
> 
> "However, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Another is a
> requirement for additional set of patches for Xen which allow
> you to load xen.efi instead of xen.gz using Mulitboot2. I
> started work on it last year but it is currently stalled."
> 
> I have taken an action to get this resolved
> (aka find someone to do the work).
> 
> [A3] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-5281 <https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-5281>
> [A4] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-5281 <http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-5281>
> [A5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01292.html <https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01292.html>
> 
> == On [B1] / grub2-switch-to-blscfg  ==
> This issue is about Fedora _domU_ and breaks the release
> criterion. And looks like, it wasn't tested at all.
> 
> "blscfg is okay in _dom0_ - it looks like the xen setup still
> gets put in non-blscfg format, and doesn't seem to matter in
> HVM _domU_."
> 
> "The big issue is _domU_ in PV which would need a fair amount
> of work in pygrub to fix properly, including reading variables
> from grubenv and extracting details from the loader files. This
> is really something to be fixed on the Xen side ... I do keep
> intending to have a look at it myself though I may not get around
> to it."
> 
> Instead of fixing pygrub, it would be better, more future proof
> and easier to "use pvgrub2 instead. To be honest, its very unclear
> to me why would anyone want to use pygrub, when pvgrub2 exists.
> pygrub is much more fragile (as it needs to re-implement a
> parser for 3rd-party configuration format, without stable
> specification) and less secure - it does that in dom0, including
> mounting domU controlled disk.
> 
> That said, the pvgrub2 option also requires some work, because:
> - Fedora grub2 packages do not include the "xen" target platform
> - Non-Fedora grub2 package don't have blscfg support
> - If we'd talk about PVH (which isn't the case here), it requires grub
>  2.04, which is at RC1 and isn't packaged for Fedora yet"
> 
> That would be much simpler, if blscfg was upstreamed into grub2 by
> Fedora community members. Do you know whether the Fedora has plans
> to do this?
> 
> In any case, I have taken an action to get this resolved
> (aka find someone to do the work).
> 
> @xen-devel: this should probably be discussed separately, such that
> we don't flood test@fedoraproject with unnecessary traffic
> 
> == In Summary ==
> I think we can find a way forward on the testing side. Would
> the proposal work for you?
> 
> Resolving the current blockers, this seems to have been caused by a
> lack of communication or not understanding the impact of the
> grub2-switch-to-blscfg in Fedora. In any case, we are where we are.
> 
> Best Regards
> Lars


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 100002 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Steven Haigh]

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:50 PM, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Apologies,
> I mixed up some references
> Lars
> 
...
> [A2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103
> [B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700

Bug B1 here was lodged by myself. There is also a post to xen-devel 
titled "pygrub not starting first menuentry in Fedora 30".

I just added a comment there which I shall paste below to include those 
not subscribed to that BZ:

Thinking about this further - and noticing it being referenced on 
xen-devel mailing list, I would like to suggest the following - which 
may have been overlooked right now...

If the grub %post scripting checked to see if it was installing / 
upgrading in a Xen DomU, it could set 'GRUB_ENABLE_BLSCFG=false' in 
/etc/default/grub automatically. This would fix both new installs and 
upgrades.

The final fix would be figuring out why pygrub currently boots the 
*second* entry in the resulting grub.cfg - unlike how F29 worked. This 
may be either a fix on the grub2-mkconfig or pygrub side - I'm not 
quite sure yet. This would likely restore functionality completely. At 
least until something else more suitable is done?



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[M A Young]

On Tue, 14 May 2019, Steven Haigh wrote:

> The final fix would be figuring out why pygrub currently boots the *second*
> entry in the resulting grub.cfg - unlike how F29 worked. This may be either a
> fix on the grub2-mkconfig or pygrub side - I'm not quite sure yet. This would
> likely restore functionality completely. At least until something else more
> suitable is done?

The answer to why is easy. pygrub just ignores "if" instructions and there 
is a
    set default=1
line in an if clause from /etc/grub.d/08_fallback_counting so it 
defaults to the second entry as they are numbered from 0.

	Michael Young

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Lars Kurth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8802 bytes --]

@Adam and Fedora Testing & QA:
any views on my proposal?
Regards
Lars

> On 13 May 2019, at 16:29, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xenproject.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am going to step in here with my hat as Xen Project community
> manager. We had a discussion about this issue as part of last week's
> community call. I CC'ed a number of stake-holders, which probably
> should have been on the thread such as ITL (which builds QubesOS
> on top of Fedora) and Michael A Young (the Xen package manager).
> 
> First of all apologies that this issue has lingered so long. Key
> members of the community were not aware of the issues raised in
> this thread, otherwise we would have acted earlier. With this in
> mind, please in future raise issues with me, on xen-devel@,
> committers@ or the Xen-Fedora package manager. The Xen Community
> would like to see Fedora running as guest: in fact it would be
> somewhat odd if there was a Xen-Dom0 package and guest support
> didn't work. And there are some downstreams such as QubesOS,
> which depend on this support.
> 
>> On 6 Jul 2017, at 13:45, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>> Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
>>>> the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
>>>> that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
>>>> arose).
>>>> 
>>>> For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
>>> 
>>> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
>>> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
>>> how to fix that thought.
>> 
>> Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
>> testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
>> announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
>> subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
>> notification?
> 
> We discussed this at the community call and came to the conclusion that
> we can run regular tests of Fedora RC's as part of our OSSTEST
> infrastructure. Ian Jackson volunteered to implement this, but there
> are some questions on
> a) The installer (which we can handle ourselves)
> b) When we would trigger a test - aka is there some trigger other than the
> c) How would results best be reported back to Fedora
> 
> Apologies, I am not very familiar with how the Fedora Test group works.
> Is there some documentation which would help integrate what you to with
> the test system of another open source project?
> 
>>>> from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
>>>> criterion:
>>> 
>>> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
>> 
>> Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
>> so they got a bit conflated :)
> 
> Can we come to some arrangement, by which such issues get communicated
> to the Xen Project earlier? Aka me, xen-devel@ or committers@
> 
>>>> "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
>>>> a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
>>>> utilizing Xen."
>>>> 
>>>> and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
>>>> from Final to Optional.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
>>> 
>>> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>> 
>> This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
>> - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
>> on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
>> cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> 
> Would the proposal above work for you? I think it satisfies what you are
> looking for. We would also have someone who monitors these test results
> pro-actively.
> 
> Then, there are the specific grub issues that need resolving
> [A1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002>
>     (and a recently filed duplicate @
>      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691559 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691559>) caused by
>      [A2])
> [A2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264103>[B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703700>
> The first makes it harder to boot Fedora _dom0_ (but workarounds exist).
> While it is unpleasant, it doesn't break the release criterion, but
> probably has deterred people from testing. The second one [B1] is about
> Fedora _domU_, which breaks the release criterion.
> 
> Marek and Michael had a discussion about these and there was also
> a summary from Daniel.
> 
> == On [A1]/[A2] ==
> Lack of GRUB2 multiboot2/module2 commands in Fedora/RH which does not
> allow you load Xen as dom0 on EFI platforms with or without secure
> boot. Here are some relevant snippets from the discussions:
> 
> "In general both modules were dropped due to CVE-2015-5281 (grub2:
> modules built in on EFI builds that allow loading arbitrary code,
> circumventing secure boot) [A3][A4]. Of course this makes sense
> because we do not want to break UEFI secure boot. But this means
> that you cannot boot Xen dom0 on UEFI platforms. The Multiboot2
> protocol support is required to do that. Potentially you can
> use xen.efi directly but AFAICT many people prefer to use GRUB2.
> The CVE issue does not exist in GRUB2 upstream. It was fixed at
> the end of 2019."
> 
> Is there any chance these can get upstreamed into Fedora/RH?
> 
> "However, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Another is a
> requirement for additional set of patches for Xen which allow
> you to load xen.efi instead of xen.gz using Mulitboot2. I
> started work on it last year but it is currently stalled."
> 
> I have taken an action to get this resolved
> (aka find someone to do the work).
> 
> [A3] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-5281 <https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-5281>
> [A4] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-5281 <http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-5281>
> [A5] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01292.html <https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01292.html>
> 
> == On [B1] / grub2-switch-to-blscfg  ==
> This issue is about Fedora _domU_ and breaks the release
> criterion. And looks like, it wasn't tested at all.
> 
> "blscfg is okay in _dom0_ - it looks like the xen setup still
> gets put in non-blscfg format, and doesn't seem to matter in
> HVM _domU_."
> 
> "The big issue is _domU_ in PV which would need a fair amount
> of work in pygrub to fix properly, including reading variables
> from grubenv and extracting details from the loader files. This
> is really something to be fixed on the Xen side ... I do keep
> intending to have a look at it myself though I may not get around
> to it."
> 
> Instead of fixing pygrub, it would be better, more future proof
> and easier to "use pvgrub2 instead. To be honest, its very unclear
> to me why would anyone want to use pygrub, when pvgrub2 exists.
> pygrub is much more fragile (as it needs to re-implement a
> parser for 3rd-party configuration format, without stable
> specification) and less secure - it does that in dom0, including
> mounting domU controlled disk.
> 
> That said, the pvgrub2 option also requires some work, because:
> - Fedora grub2 packages do not include the "xen" target platform
> - Non-Fedora grub2 package don't have blscfg support
> - If we'd talk about PVH (which isn't the case here), it requires grub
>  2.04, which is at RC1 and isn't packaged for Fedora yet"
> 
> That would be much simpler, if blscfg was upstreamed into grub2 by
> Fedora community members. Do you know whether the Fedora has plans
> to do this?
> 
> In any case, I have taken an action to get this resolved
> (aka find someone to do the work).
> 
> @xen-devel: this should probably be discussed separately, such that
> we don't flood test@fedoraproject with unnecessary traffic
> 
> == In Summary ==
> I think we can find a way forward on the testing side. Would
> the proposal work for you?
> 
> Resolving the current blockers, this seems to have been caused by a
> lack of communication or not understanding the impact of the
> grub2-switch-to-blscfg in Fedora. In any case, we are where we are.
> 
> Best Regards
> Lars


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 97917 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Kamil Paral]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:45 PM Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Adam and Fedora Testing & QA:
> any views on my proposal?
> Regards
> Lars
>

Hi Lars,
thanks for your reply. Adam was on a long vacation and he's probably the
most qualified person to reply to you, sorry for not telling you sooner.
Adam is now back, so he should hopefully join the conversation shortly.

Cheers,
Kamil

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 932 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:29 -0600, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am going to step in here with my hat as Xen Project community
> manager. We had a discussion about this issue as part of last week's
> community call. I CC'ed a number of stake-holders, which probably
> should have been on the thread such as ITL (which builds QubesOS
> on top of Fedora) and Michael A Young (the Xen package manager).
> 
> First of all apologies that this issue has lingered so long. Key
> members of the community were not aware of the issues raised in
> this thread, otherwise we would have acted earlier. With this in
> mind, please in future raise issues with me, on xen-devel@,
> committers@ or the Xen-Fedora package manager. The Xen Community
> would like to see Fedora running as guest: in fact it would be
> somewhat odd if there was a Xen-Dom0 package and guest support
> didn't work. And there are some downstreams such as QubesOS,
> which depend on this support.

Thanks for stepping in. Of course we always want as much stuff as
possible to work, but that does not mean we block the release on it. We
certainly want Fedora to work as a guest on VMWare, VirtualBox and
Parallels too; we don't block the release on any of those either...

> > Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
> > testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
> > announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
> > subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
> > notification?
> 
> We discussed this at the community call and came to the conclusion that
> we can run regular tests of Fedora RC's as part of our OSSTEST
> infrastructure. Ian Jackson volunteered to implement this, but there
> are some questions on
> a) The installer (which we can handle ourselves)
> b) When we would trigger a test - aka is there some trigger other than the
> c) How would results best be reported back to Fedora
> 
> Apologies, I am not very familiar with how the Fedora Test group works.
> Is there some documentation which would help integrate what you to with
> the test system of another open source project?

b) you can use fedmsg / fedora-messaging:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedmsg
https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedora-messaging
A message is emitted every time a compose attempt finishes (on the fedmsg
topic 'org.fedoraproject.prod.pungi.compose.status.change': see
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.pungi.compose.status.change
for a log of past messages). What you will want to do is listen for
completed Branched and Rawhide composes and run tests whenever one
completes successfully. This is already exactly what we do to schedule
openQA tests; you can crib from the openQA test scheduler:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedora_openqa
particularly the fedmsg consumer:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedora_openqa/blob/master/f/fedora_openqa/consumer.py

c) ideally it would be good to report to both resultsdb and to the
wiki. Again, we already do this for openQA, and you can crib from the
code there:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedora_openqa/blob/master/f/fedora_openqa/report.py
reporting to ResultsDB might be tricky due to authentication issues,
I'm not sure if we ever put the openID auth stuff into production. For
wiki reporting you will either have to auth manually every so often or
ask Fedora infra for a special token that doesn't expire (this is what
we do for the openQA results).
Reporting to ResultsDB you do through resultsdb_api -
https://pagure.io/taskotron/resultsdb_api - and optionally you can use
my resultsdb_conventions -
https://pagure.io/taskotron/resultsdb_conventions - which makes it
somewhat easier (IMO anyway) and will make your results consistent with
those from openQA and Autocloud. Reporting to the wiki you can do
through my crazy python-wikitcms library -
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/python-wikitcms . Again, fedora_openqa does
all this for openQA results, so you can crib from that. Let me know if
you have trouble with this.

> > > > from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
> > > > criterion:
> > > 
> > > s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
> > 
> > Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
> > so they got a bit conflated :)
> 
> Can we come to some arrangement, by which such issues get communicated
> to the Xen Project earlier? Aka me, xen-devel@ or committers@

It would be nice if you could ensure someone from Xen is actually
watching the Fedora lists, if working in Fedora is a target for Xen. We
*could* try and CC stuff all the time, but imagine if we tried to do
that for everybody. But yes, for future conversations of this nature
I'll try and remember to include those lists.

> > > > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
> > > > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> > > > utilizing Xen."
> > > > 
> > > > and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
> > > > from Final to Optional.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
> > > 
> > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > 
> > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
> > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
> > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
> > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> 
> Would the proposal above work for you? I think it satisfies what you are
> looking for. We would also have someone who monitors these test results
> pro-actively.

In theory, yeah, but given the history here I'm somewhat sceptical. I'd
also say we still haven't really got a convincing case for why we
should continue to block the release (at least in theory) on Fedora
working in Xen when we don't block on any other virt stack apart from
our 'official' one, and we don't block on all sorts of other stuff we'd
"like to have working" either. Regardless of the testing issues, I'd
like to see that too if we're going to keep blocking on Xen...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org