As an OpenShift developer working on the MCO, I want to validate that the MCO functions as intended in both a FIPS and realtime kernel context. Doing so will allow us to ensure that our customers who make use of such environments are able to use OpenShift with minimal disruption.

The questions we should aim to answer is: Are the OpenShift conformance tests (openshift-e2e) sufficient? Or should be be running the MCO-specific e2e tests? Or both? It is my opinion that right now, we should run both sets of tests in both a FIPS and realtime kernel context at least once to get early signal. We can later remove the jobs when it is determined they are no longer useful.

Done When:

• We understand how to test the MCO with RHCOS 9 in both a FIPS and realtime kernel context.
• We understand what tests we should run (openshift-e2e, MCO-specific e2e, or both).
• If needed, a PR to the openshift/release repository to enable such testing has landed. Alternatively, identifying a payload job which tests in both of those contexts. In the case of a payload job, it won't run the MCO-specific e2e, so we may still need to create jobs specifically with that goal in mind.
• A CI job testing the above has been run against https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/pull/3485, which currently makes use of a RHCOS 9 payload.
• We get a pass or failure signal from the above jobs against RHCOS 9. Rectifying an RHCOS 9-related failure signal is beyond the scope of this issue.