Re: [PATCH 2/2] automation: add a smoke test for xen.efi on X86

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/10/2024 11:55 pm, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 03:22:59PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> I forgot to reply to one important part below
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>>> Check if xen.efi is bootable with an XTF dom0.
>>>>
>>>> The TEST_TIMEOUT is set in the script to override project-global value.
>>>> Setting it in the gitlab yaml file doesn't work, as it's too low
>>>> priority
>>>> (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/variables/#cicd-variable-precedence).
>>>>
>>>> The multiboot2+EFI path is tested on hardware tests already.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> This requires rebuilding debian:bookworm container.
>>>>
>>>> The TEST_TIMEOUT issue mentioned above applies to xilix-* jobs too. It's
>>>> not clear to me why the default TEST_TIMEOUT is set at the group level
>>>> instead of in the yaml file, so I'm not adjusting the other places.
>>> Let me premise that now that we use "expect" all successful tests will
>>> terminate as soon as the success condition is met, without waiting for
>>> the test timeout to expire.
>>>
>>> There is a CI/CD variable called TEST_TIMEOUT set at the
>>> gitlab.com/xen-project level. (There is also a check in console.exp in
>>> case TEST_TIMEOUT is not set so that we don't run into problems in case
>>> the CI/CD variable is removed accidentally.) The global TEST_TIMEOUT is
>>> meant to be a high value to account for slow QEMU tests running
>>> potentially on our slowest cloud runners.
>>>
>>> However, for hardware-based tests such as the xilinx-* jobs, we know
>>> that the timeout is supposed to be less than that. The test is running
>>> on real hardware which is considerably faster than QEMU running on our
>>> slowest runners. Basically, the timeout depends on the runner more than
>>> the test. So we override the TEST_TIMEOUT variable for the xilinx-* jobs
>>> providing a lower timeout value.
>>>
>>> The global TEST_TIMEOUT is set to 1500.
>>> The xilinx-* timeout is set to 120 for ARM and 1000 for x86.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to override the TEST_TIMEOUT value for the
>>> hardware-based QubesOS tests. At the same time, given that on success
>>> the timeout is not really used, it is also OK to leave it like this.
>>  
>>  
>>>> ---
>>>>  automation/build/debian/bookworm.dockerfile |  1 +
>>>>  automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml              |  7 ++++
>>>>  automation/scripts/qemu-smoke-x86-64-efi.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100755 automation/scripts/qemu-smoke-x86-64-efi.sh
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/automation/build/debian/bookworm.dockerfile 
>>>> b/automation/build/debian/bookworm.dockerfile
>>>> index 3dd70cb6b2e3..061114ba522d 100644
>>>> --- a/automation/build/debian/bookworm.dockerfile
>>>> +++ b/automation/build/debian/bookworm.dockerfile
>>>> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ RUN apt-get update && \
>>>>          # for test phase, qemu-smoke-* jobs
>>>>          qemu-system-x86 \
>>>>          expect \
>>>> +        ovmf \
>>>>          # for test phase, qemu-alpine-* jobs
>>>>          cpio \
>>>>          busybox-static \
>>>> diff --git a/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml 
>>>> b/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml
>>>> index 8675016b6a37..74fd3f3109ae 100644
>>>> --- a/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml
>>>> +++ b/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml
>>>> @@ -463,6 +463,13 @@ qemu-smoke-x86-64-clang-pvh:
>>>>    needs:
>>>>      - debian-bookworm-clang-debug
>>>>  
>>>> +qemu-smoke-x86-64-gcc-efi:
>>>> +  extends: .qemu-x86-64
>>>> +  script:
>>>> +    - ./automation/scripts/qemu-smoke-x86-64-efi.sh pv 2>&1 | tee 
>>>> ${LOGFILE}
>>>> +  needs:
>>>> +    - debian-bookworm-gcc-debug
>>> Given that the script you wrote (thank you!) can also handle pvh, can we
>>> directly add a pvh job to test.yaml too?
> I guess we can, but is xen.efi + PVH dom0 actually different enough to
> worth testing given we already test MB2+EFI + PVH dom0?

Given that its only an XTF dom0, no.  We're only smoke testing the
"native EFI" bits here.

~Andrew