Apologies, I mixed up some references Lars > On 13 May 2019, at 16:29, Lars Kurth <lars.ku...@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 <adamw...@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
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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
