-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix checking of relative idmapped mount #20961
Conversation
Like stated in [PR for crun](containers/crun#1372) that HostID is what being mapped here, so we should be checking `HostID` instead of `ContainerID`. `v.ContainerID` here is the id of owner of files on filesystem, that can be totally unrelated to the uid maps. Signed-off-by: Karuboniru <[email protected]>
@giuseppe PTAL @karuboniru You either need to add a test or add the [ no new tests needed ] flag to your description. |
Signed-off-by: Karuboniru <[email protected]>
@rhatdan I added a test and it seems the pipeline did not raise a red flag so it should be fine I guess? (the failures are related to cockpit-podman which I think it is unrelated here) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, karuboniru The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
A friendly reminder that this PR had no activity for 30 days. |
Is there anything missing or we are just waiting for something else? |
@rhatdan fine to merge? |
/lgtm |
83f89db
into
containers:main
Like stated in PR for crun
that HostID is what being mapped here, so we should be checking
HostID
instead ofContainerID
.v.ContainerID
here is the id of owner of files on filesystem, that can be totally unrelated to the uid maps.Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Yes, but this should make more sense?