Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:21:04PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2020 10:21:49 -0400, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > It's actually not CKI, just a few smoke tests (config validation, making > > sure the SRPM builds) run on the free Gitlab runners. It'd be great to > > get CKI to do build tests in the future, though. > > Okay, thanks for correcting me. > > > Having the bridge wait for CI is configurable and I think it's best to > > just turn it off. It was most useful back when I was the only one making > > merge requests so I didn't spam the list with changes that were broken > > anyway. > > Sounds good. I agree that it should be turned off. It will create less > confusion. Could you do it, please? > > Thanks! It should, in theory, now email patches immediately without waiting for a CI result. - Jeremy ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On 5/13/20 11:54 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:21:31AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:13 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> On 5/13/20 10:31 AM, Don Zickus wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: >> On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets >>> from rh-* to >>> dist-* >> >> I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's >> going on? The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci >>> >>> Thanks. That's what I was looking for. >>> which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely pass something malicious). However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both at the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch for the CI scripts). We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately you hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( >>> >>> Heh :) Of course it's my fault :) :) >>> >>> How about these steps? >>> >>> 1) I patch to add the dist-* targets and keep the old rh-* targets >>> temporarily. >>> This patch will be messy unless someone has some Makefile-fu. >>> 2) I modify the kernel-ark-ci scripts to use the dist-* targets. >>> 3) I patch to remove the old rh-* targets which will result in an overall >>> clean >>> patch. > > That was the approach I was thinking of too. > >>> >>> Would that work for everyone? >>> >> This seems unnecessarily messy. Why not modify the CI scripts to check >> both and as long as at least one of them passes, CI passes? Yup I can do it that way too. > > That is another way. But is there any value to leaving the rh- stuff in the > scripts? Unless we want to preserve legacy like rhel-7/8. I've been wondering the same thing. I think moving forward is the best approach here. I'll modify the CI scripts to do the right thing, then submit an updated patch (jcline's documentation patches were merged and also now need updating). P. > > I don't mind either way. I would like to preserve the idea that for > security reasons the code and the ci rules are split and updated > asynchronously. I think both approaches respect that idea. > > Now ARK/Fedora CI scripts don't really necessitate a split other than the > branching scheme we use. But when CentOS-stream ramps up later this year, > more rules and resources get involved and the security from the separation > becomes stronger. So practicing now helps test out a solution. > > Hopefully that makes sense! > > Cheers, > Don > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, 13 May 2020 10:21:49 -0400, Jeremy Cline wrote: > It's actually not CKI, just a few smoke tests (config validation, making > sure the SRPM builds) run on the free Gitlab runners. It'd be great to > get CKI to do build tests in the future, though. Okay, thanks for correcting me. > Having the bridge wait for CI is configurable and I think it's best to > just turn it off. It was most useful back when I was the only one making > merge requests so I didn't spam the list with changes that were broken > anyway. Sounds good. I agree that it should be turned off. It will create less confusion. Could you do it, please? Thanks! Jiri ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:21:31AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:13 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > > On 5/13/20 10:31 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > >> On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets > > from rh-* to > > dist-* > > >>> > > >>> I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's > > >>> going on? > > > > > > The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: > > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci > > > > > > > Thanks. That's what I was looking for. > > > > > which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons > > > (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely > > > pass something malicious). > > > > > > However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both > > > at > > > the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons > > > (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch > > > for > > > the CI scripts). > > > > > > We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately > > > you > > > hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( > > > > Heh :) Of course it's my fault :) :) > > > > How about these steps? > > > > 1) I patch to add the dist-* targets and keep the old rh-* targets > > temporarily. > > This patch will be messy unless someone has some Makefile-fu. > > 2) I modify the kernel-ark-ci scripts to use the dist-* targets. > > 3) I patch to remove the old rh-* targets which will result in an overall > > clean > > patch. That was the approach I was thinking of too. > > > > Would that work for everyone? > > > This seems unnecessarily messy. Why not modify the CI scripts to check > both and as long as at least one of them passes, CI passes? That is another way. But is there any value to leaving the rh- stuff in the scripts? Unless we want to preserve legacy like rhel-7/8. I don't mind either way. I would like to preserve the idea that for security reasons the code and the ci rules are split and updated asynchronously. I think both approaches respect that idea. Now ARK/Fedora CI scripts don't really necessitate a split other than the branching scheme we use. But when CentOS-stream ramps up later this year, more rules and resources get involved and the security from the separation becomes stronger. So practicing now helps test out a solution. Hopefully that makes sense! Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:13 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > On 5/13/20 10:31 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > >>> On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from > rh-* to > dist-* > >>> > >>> I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's > >>> going on? > > > > The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci > > > > Thanks. That's what I was looking for. > > > which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons > > (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely > > pass something malicious). > > > > However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both at > > the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons > > (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch for > > the CI scripts). > > > > We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately you > > hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( > > Heh :) Of course it's my fault :) :) > > How about these steps? > > 1) I patch to add the dist-* targets and keep the old rh-* targets > temporarily. > This patch will be messy unless someone has some Makefile-fu. > 2) I modify the kernel-ark-ci scripts to use the dist-* targets. > 3) I patch to remove the old rh-* targets which will result in an overall > clean > patch. > > Would that work for everyone? > This seems unnecessarily messy. Why not modify the CI scripts to check both and as long as at least one of them passes, CI passes? Justin ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On 5/13/20 10:31 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from rh-* to dist-* >>> >>> I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's >>> going on? > > The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci > Thanks. That's what I was looking for. > which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons > (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely > pass something malicious). > > However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both at > the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons > (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch for > the CI scripts). > > We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately you > hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( Heh :) Of course it's my fault :) :) How about these steps? 1) I patch to add the dist-* targets and keep the old rh-* targets temporarily. This patch will be messy unless someone has some Makefile-fu. 2) I modify the kernel-ark-ci scripts to use the dist-* targets. 3) I patch to remove the old rh-* targets which will result in an overall clean patch. Would that work for everyone? P. > > Cheers, > Don > >>> >> >> jbenc, >> >> My patch will be posted only after it passes CKI by the bridge. I'm using >> the >> suggested kernel-ark wiki procedure at >> >> https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/wikis/Contributor-guide >> >> You can see my patch here >> >> https://gitlab.com/prarit/kernel-ark/-/commit/1b1d4554fc1b7f76a690fe9255ad75609e9ffe25 >> >> The patch fails CKI because first test builds an srpm using 'make rh-srpm'. >> My >> patch changes all the rh-* makefile target names from rh-* to dist-*, which >> breaks the CKI test because 'rh-srpm' is not longer a makefile target. >> >> IOW this is a chicken-and-egg problem and I'm not sure how get around it. >> >> P. >> ___ >> kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > > On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from > >> rh-* to > >> dist-* > > > > I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's > > going on? The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely pass something malicious). However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both at the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch for the CI scripts). We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately you hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( Cheers, Don > > > > jbenc, > > My patch will be posted only after it passes CKI by the bridge. I'm using the > suggested kernel-ark wiki procedure at > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/wikis/Contributor-guide > > You can see my patch here > > https://gitlab.com/prarit/kernel-ark/-/commit/1b1d4554fc1b7f76a690fe9255ad75609e9ffe25 > > The patch fails CKI because first test builds an srpm using 'make rh-srpm'. > My > patch changes all the rh-* makefile target names from rh-* to dist-*, which > breaks the CKI test because 'rh-srpm' is not longer a makefile target. > > IOW this is a chicken-and-egg problem and I'm not sure how get around it. > > P. > ___ > kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:57:31PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2020 07:22:45 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > IOW this is a chicken-and-egg problem and I'm not sure how get around it. > > In other words, patches are sent to the list only after they pass CKI? > That's unexpected, though I can see that it could make sense. > > However, in that case, we need something that ensures that patches that > have not been sent to the list are never applied. I can imagine that a > CKI outage might make all Gitlab merge requests tagged as failed CI, > which would be overriden by the package maintainer in good faith to > unblock the development. But that would mean that many reviewers did > not have a chance to see the patches. We need to ensure this can't > happen. > It's actually not CKI, just a few smoke tests (config validation, making sure the SRPM builds) run on the free Gitlab runners. It'd be great to get CKI to do build tests in the future, though. Having the bridge wait for CI is configurable and I think it's best to just turn it off. It was most useful back when I was the only one making merge requests so I didn't spam the list with changes that were broken anyway. - Jeremy ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Wed, 13 May 2020 07:22:45 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > IOW this is a chicken-and-egg problem and I'm not sure how get around it. In other words, patches are sent to the list only after they pass CKI? That's unexpected, though I can see that it could make sense. However, in that case, we need something that ensures that patches that have not been sent to the list are never applied. I can imagine that a CKI outage might make all Gitlab merge requests tagged as failed CI, which would be overriden by the package maintainer in good faith to unblock the development. But that would mean that many reviewers did not have a chance to see the patches. We need to ensure this can't happen. Jiri ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from >> rh-* to >> dist-* > > I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's > going on? > jbenc, My patch will be posted only after it passes CKI by the bridge. I'm using the suggested kernel-ark wiki procedure at https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/wikis/Contributor-guide You can see my patch here https://gitlab.com/prarit/kernel-ark/-/commit/1b1d4554fc1b7f76a690fe9255ad75609e9ffe25 The patch fails CKI because first test builds an srpm using 'make rh-srpm'. My patch changes all the rh-* makefile target names from rh-* to dist-*, which breaks the CKI test because 'rh-srpm' is not longer a makefile target. IOW this is a chicken-and-egg problem and I'm not sure how get around it. P. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: kernel-ark | Pipeline #145379201 has failed for osnamechange | 1b1d4554 in !354
On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from rh-* > to > dist-* I haven't seen that patch on kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org. What's going on? Jiri ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
