Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
----------------------------------------------------------- Here is an early agenda we put together: - Introductions - Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general - The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September. - Test result interpretation and bug detection - How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive? - Getting results to developers/maintainers - Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations. - How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in? - What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch series are being tested? - Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW is needed? - Onboarding new kernel trees to test - Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers. - Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general? - Security when testing untrusted patches - How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage? - Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/ - Avoiding effort duplication - Food for thought by GregKH - X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage? - Common hardware pools - Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
- Food for thought by GregKH
So I guess I'm going to be there?
Ok, fair enough, I'll be present, looks good :)
thanks,
greg k-h
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg KH" gregkh@linuxfoundation.org To: "Veronika Kabatova" vkabatov@redhat.com Cc: automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, "Laura Abbott" labbott@redhat.com, "Eliska Slobodova" eslobodo@redhat.com, "CKI Project" cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 6:47:04 PM Subject: Re: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in?
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click
series are being tested?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch
HW is needed?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
- Food for thought by GregKH
So I guess I'm going to be there?
Ok, fair enough, I'll be present, looks good :)
Glad to hear that! You always have valuable feedback and ideas to offer so we are definitely looking forward to having you there :)
Veronika
thanks,
greg k-h
-----Original Message----- From: Veronika Kabatova
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,
I plan to come to the event.
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests
and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they
come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch
series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in
them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Common hardware pools
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could
also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
I have strong opinions on some of these, but maybe only useful experience in a few areas. Fuego has 2 separate notions, which we call "skiplists" and "pass criteria", which have to do with this bullet:
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
I'd be happy to discuss this, if it's desired.
Otherwise, I've recently been working on standards for "test definition", which defines the data and meta-data associated with a test. I could talk about where I'm at with that, if people are interested.
Let me know what you think. -- Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com To: vkabatov@redhat.com, automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, labbott@redhat.com Cc: eslobodo@redhat.com, cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:17:04 PM Subject: RE: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
-----Original Message----- From: Veronika Kabatova
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,
I plan to come to the event.
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and
and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click
come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch
series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special
HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in
them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on
- Common hardware pools
for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially
also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
I have strong opinions on some of these, but maybe only useful experience in a few areas. Fuego has 2 separate notions, which we call "skiplists" and "pass criteria", which have to do with this bullet:
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
I'd be happy to discuss this, if it's desired.
Otherwise, I've recently been working on standards for "test definition", which defines the data and meta-data associated with a test. I could talk about where I'm at with that, if people are interested.
Sounds great! I added both your points to the agenda as I do think they have a place here. The list of items is growing so I hope we can still fit everything into the two days we planned :)
See you there! Veronika
Let me know what you think. -- Tim
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:52 PM Veronika Kabatova vkabatov@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com To: vkabatov@redhat.com, automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, labbott@redhat.com Cc: eslobodo@redhat.com, cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:17:04 PM Subject: RE: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
-----Original Message----- From: Veronika Kabatova
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,
I plan to come to the event.
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and
and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click
come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch
series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special
HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in
them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on
Hi Veronika,
All are great questions that we need to resolve!
I am also very much concerned about duplication in 2 other dimensions with the current approach to kernel testing:
1. If X different CI systems running ${TEST}, developers receive X reports about the same breakage from X different directions, in different formats, of different quality, at slightly different times and somebody needs to act on all of them in some way. The more CI systems we have, the more run meaningful number of tests and do automatic reporting, the more and more duplicates developers get.
2. Effort duplication between implementation of different CI systems. Doing a proper and really good CI is very hard. This includes all questions that you mentioned here, and fine tuning of all of that, refining reporting, bisection, onboarding of different test suites, onboarding of different dynamic/static analysis tools and much more. Last but not least is duplication of processes related to these CIs. Speaking of my experience with syzbot, this is extremely hard and takes years. And we really can't expose a developer to 27 different systems and slightly different processes (this would mean they follow 0 of these processes). This is further complicated by the fact that kernel tests are fragmented, so it's not possible to, say, simply run all kernel tests. And kernel processes are fragmented, e.g. you mentioned patchwork, but not all subsystems use patchwork, so it's not possible to simply extend a CI to all subsystems. And some aspects of the current kernel development process notoriously complicate automation of things that really should be trivial. For example, if you have github/gitlab/gerrit, you can hook into arrival of each new change and pull exact code state. Done. For kernel some changes appear on patchwork, some don't, some are duplicated on multiple patchworks, some duplicated in a weird way on the same patchwork, some non-patches appear on patchwork because it's confused, and last but not least you can't really apply any of them because none of them include base tree/commit info. Handling just this requires lots of effort, guessing on coffee grounds and heuristics that need to be refined over time. The total complexity of doing it just once, with all resources combined and dev process re-shaped to cooperate is close to off-scale.
Do you see these points as a problem too? Or am I exaggerating matters?
- Common hardware pools
for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially
also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
I have strong opinions on some of these, but maybe only useful experience in a few areas. Fuego has 2 separate notions, which we call "skiplists" and "pass criteria", which have to do with this bullet:
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
I'd be happy to discuss this, if it's desired.
Otherwise, I've recently been working on standards for "test definition", which defines the data and meta-data associated with a test. I could talk about where I'm at with that, if people are interested.
Sounds great! I added both your points to the agenda as I do think they have a place here. The list of items is growing so I hope we can still fit everything into the two days we planned :)
See you there! Veronika
Let me know what you think. -- Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Vyukov" dvyukov@google.com To: "Veronika Kabatova" vkabatov@redhat.com Cc: "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com, automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, "syzkaller" syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, "stable" stable@vger.kernel.org, "Laura Abbott" labbott@redhat.com, "Eliska Slobodova" eslobodo@redhat.com, cki-project@redhat.com, "David Rientjes" rientjes@google.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 4:39:16 PM Subject: Re: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:52 PM Veronika Kabatova vkabatov@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com To: vkabatov@redhat.com, automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, labbott@redhat.com Cc: eslobodo@redhat.com, cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:17:04 PM Subject: RE: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
-----Original Message----- From: Veronika Kabatova
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,
I plan to come to the event.
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and
and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a
come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch
series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if
special HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the
- Security when testing untrusted patches
in
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code
them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on
Hi Veronika,
Hi!
All are great questions that we need to resolve!
I am also very much concerned about duplication in 2 other dimensions with the current approach to kernel testing:
- If X different CI systems running ${TEST}, developers receive X
reports about the same breakage from X different directions, in different formats, of different quality, at slightly different times and somebody needs to act on all of them in some way. The more CI systems we have, the more run meaningful number of tests and do automatic reporting, the more and more duplicates developers get.
This is a very good point that we had to deal with internally -- people aren't happy getting multiple reports about a same issue.
And that's what part of my point of finding balance was about too. Maybe the test only breaks on specific HW so getting X reports from runs on different HW where X-1 pass and one fails helps to narrow the issue down. Same if it fails everywhere -- it has to be some central code that caused the failures. If all the reports are just different version of "tested on x86 VM and it failed" then I totally agree it's not much help.
The formats and quality of the reports is definitely something worth talking about too, and potentially unify as much as we can (Tim started some work on this already).
- Effort duplication between implementation of different CI systems.
Doing a proper and really good CI is very hard. This includes all questions that you mentioned here, and fine tuning of all of that, refining reporting, bisection, onboarding of different test suites, onboarding of different dynamic/static analysis tools and much more. Last but not least is duplication of processes related to these CIs. Speaking of my experience with syzbot, this is extremely hard and takes years. And we really can't expose a developer to 27 different systems and slightly different processes (this would mean they follow 0 of these processes). This is further complicated by the fact that kernel tests are fragmented, so it's not possible to, say, simply run all kernel tests. And kernel processes are fragmented, e.g. you mentioned patchwork, but not all subsystems use patchwork, so it's not possible to simply extend a CI to all subsystems. And some aspects of the current kernel development process notoriously complicate automation of things that really should be trivial. For example, if you have github/gitlab/gerrit, you can hook into arrival of each new change and pull exact code state. Done. For kernel some changes appear on patchwork, some don't, some are duplicated on multiple patchworks, some duplicated in a weird way on the same patchwork, some non-patches appear on patchwork because it's confused, and last but not least you can't really apply any of them because none of them include base tree/commit info. Handling just this requires lots of effort, guessing on coffee grounds and heuristics that need to be refined over time. The total complexity of doing it just once, with all resources combined and dev process re-shaped to cooperate is close to off-scale.
Totally agreed, we've have some fun with some of the points you mentioned as well and I'm sure others too. What we do in CKI is to unify as much as we can across different trees we're testing. For example the trees living in GitHub/GitLab/Gerrit -- not all trees do this but all trees use the git backend so we use polling and commit checking (ugly, I admit) as it works everywhere and we don't need to maintain multiple different APIs for the same thing.
I don't want to derail the invite discussion by replying to everything here but what you brought up are great points that every CI system around kernel has to deal with.
Do you see these points as a problem too? Or am I exaggerating matters?
Oh absolutely! While it's what I call "the nasty implementation details" they are all valid problems that should be talked about more. Whether it's with developers (eg. the points about putting kernel tests into a single place and unifying the development process, if possible) or with other CI teams.
I'd be happy to talk with you about all of this at the hackfest or privately/off-thread. The automated-testing list (in cc) is a great place too as a diverse set of people involved with CI gathers there.
Let me know what works for you, Veronika
- Common hardware pools
especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful
also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
I have strong opinions on some of these, but maybe only useful experience in a few areas. Fuego has 2 separate notions, which we call "skiplists" and "pass criteria", which have to do with this bullet:
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and
test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
I'd be happy to discuss this, if it's desired.
Otherwise, I've recently been working on standards for "test definition", which defines the data and meta-data associated with a test. I could talk about where I'm at with that, if people are interested.
Sounds great! I added both your points to the agenda as I do think they have a place here. The list of items is growing so I hope we can still fit everything into the two days we planned :)
See you there! Veronika
Let me know what you think. -- Tim
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy to help out.
With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This, along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.
Dan
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389....
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Common hardware pools
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
Hi Veronika,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
I am going be there and plan to attend.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy to help out.
With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This, along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389....
Good to know there is an overlap and it makes sense for me to attend. :)
thanks, -- Shuah
Added you both to the list :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shuah Khan" shuahkhan@gmail.com To: "Veronika Kabatova" vkabatov@redhat.com, automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, "stable" stable@vger.kernel.org, "Laura Abbott" labbott@redhat.com, "Eliska Slobodova" eslobodo@redhat.com, "CKI Project" cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 12:00:13 AM Subject: Re: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite
Hi Veronika,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
I am going be there and plan to attend.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy to help out.
With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This, along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389....
Good to know there is an overlap and it makes sense for me to attend. :)
I've been pointed to this thread just yesterday (thanks Laura!) and I agree you bring up interesting topics in there. In fact, the "Getting results out" topic Dan mentioned has the reproducibility of the failures as one of the agenda items.
There definitely *is* an overlap in some of the topics and we'd be excited to have you both there to talk more!
Veronika
thanks, -- Shuah
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:00 AM Shuah Khan shuahkhan@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Veronika,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
I am going be there and plan to attend.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy to help out.
With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This, along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389....
Good to know there is an overlap and it makes sense for me to attend. :)
Hi Shuah,
Oh, and I did not even know about https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389.... How can I be kept in the loop/provide inputs/receive feedback/discussion summary?
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:28 AM Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:00 AM Shuah Khan shuahkhan@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Veronika,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
I am going be there and plan to attend.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy to help out.
With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This, along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389....
Good to know there is an overlap and it makes sense for me to attend. :)
Hi Shuah,
Oh, and I did not even know about https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389.... How can I be kept in the loop/provide inputs/receive feedback/discussion summary?
Sorry didn't see this until now. You can subscribe ksummit-discuss to follow the thread.
thanks, -- Shuah
On 5/21/19 4:54 PM, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Hi Veronika, I would like to be there.
Cheers,
Tomeu
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, Veronika CKI Project
Here is an early agenda we put together:
- Introductions
- Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
- The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.
- Test result interpretation and bug detection
- How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?
- Getting results to developers/maintainers
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
- How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in?
- What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch series are being tested?
- Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW is needed?
- Onboarding new kernel trees to test
- Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
- Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
- Security when testing untrusted patches
- How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?
- Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
- Avoiding effort duplication
- Food for thought by GregKH
- X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?
- Common hardware pools
- Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#404): https://groups.io/g/kernelci/message/404 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31697554/925689 Group Owner: kernelci+owner@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/kernelci/unsub [tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 21. 05. 19 16:54, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Hi,
as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
I would like to join these meetings too. Please put me on the list. I was also on the first meeting after ELCE.
Thanks, Michal
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
Still waiting for final confirmation but I expect to be there too.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Dan Rue -
Dmitry Vyukov -
Greg KH -
Mark Brown -
Michal Simek -
Shuah Khan -
Tim.Bird＠sony.com -
Tomeu Vizoso -
Veronika Kabatova