Linux tests should cover more than Ubuntu Linux

[wfurt]

Describe the bug

It seems like current test coverage only covers ubuntu-latest. The is problematic IMHO as OpenSSL differs on different distributions e.g. there is more than just OpenSSL 1.1 and 3.

We should probably cover at least following distributions as addition

• Centos 7 / Mariner 2 to cover OpenSSL fine FIPS mode (msquic does not load with OpenSSL in FIPS mode #3422)
• Alpine Linux - musl libc, different cipher setting (msquic fails to load on Alpine Linux when system crypto is used #3448)
• preferably something like older version of Ubuntu or Debian e.gh. Ubuntu 18 to verify Quic work on older kernels (fix build on Ubuntu 18 #3379 and perhaps others)

This probably does not need to be full set. Platforms tests + some basic coverage should be sufficient IMHO

One can also take inspiration from https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes/7.0/supported-os.md

Affected OS

• Windows
• Linux
• macOS
• Other (specify below)

Additional OS information

No response

MsQuic version

main

Steps taken to reproduce bug

run MsQuic on various linux distributions

Expected behavior

quic should load and function

Actual outcome

quic sometimes fails to load because of differences in OpenSSL library

Additional details

cc: @ManickaP @CarnaViire

[CarnaViire]

We may also use this as an integration test platform between MsQuic and .NET. I've made some scripts to check the integration on minimalistic Docker images covering most of https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes/8.0/supported-os.md -- the test installs the latest .NET daily build and MsQuic from packages.microsoft.com on Docker images and checks whether the lib at least loads to .NET properly (QuicConnection.IsSupported == true). It can be expanded to include some basic echo test.

I might be able to poke at this after we're done with .NET 8. I believe we wanted to have some integration testing within MsQuic CI pipeline even before, but we tried to approach it from a too complicated side.

[liveans]

We've done some work related to this in #4466, but should we close this as resolved or more work is necessary (like running unit tests etc. in different containers)?

/cc @wfurt @nibanks

[CarnaViire]

Should we also add Alpine? @liveans
I believe it was not part of #4466 (and it's also mentioned here in the issue description).

[liveans]

Should we also add Alpine? @liveans I believe it was not part of #4466 (and it's also mentioned here in the issue description).

It was part of #4554, and completed recently, the only missing part for Alpine is ARM32, because dotnet is not working reliably over simulation on ARM32 Alpine.

[CarnaViire]

Then it's all good, thanks!
IMO we can consider it done, and open a new issue if we would like to expand further.

[nibanks]

Thanks so much for all the help on this!