On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

> Anyway, the main reason we have NOT added testers (nor allowed
> developers to use the test systems from their employer) is that those
> test systems are able to be accessed by a huge/unknown number of other
> people, none of who should have access to the potential changes under
> development.

> If that can be solved, with a "private" kernelci/lkft/openssf/whatever
> test instance, that would be wonderful.  Ideally it should be the
> responsibility of the hardware vendor for which we are fixing their
> broken hardware with kernel changes to provide this for us.

I think we could usefully have such systems or scripts available which
people could use at their option as part of setting the baseline,
ideally something based on free software so people can stand the stack
up themselves if they want.  Probably there will be occasions when it
gets used, if only by upstream people, and it's less stop energy to
point people at something they can concretely use rather than a list of
tests which people might not already know how to run.  If it's just a
list of requirements there's more chance people might mess up running in
ways that non-obviously don't actually test the thing.

> I know that Linaro has made some lkft access available to some of us in
> the past with "private" test systems, but that was a long time ago and I
> don't think I have access to that anymore with their most recent rewrite
> of their backend.  Oh, and their systems primarily test ARM cpus, of
> which we generally do NOT use the embargoed-hw system because those CPUs
> usually don't have these types of problems :)

They do have a bunch of qemu stuff (though it's not super comprehensive
in terms of things like firmware combos since they're more focused on
runtime testing) and while that's not the world emulation would catch
some of the wider spread issues we see.  OTOH the infra software isn't
published.