Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 11, 2024

Conversation

karuboniru
Copy link
Contributor

@karuboniru karuboniru commented Dec 9, 2023

Like stated in PR for crun

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.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Yes, but this should make more sense?

Relative id mapped mount will check which segment of uidmap to use based on host id instead of filesystem id.

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]>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Enforce release-note requirement, even if just None release-note and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Enforce release-note requirement, even if just None labels Dec 9, 2023
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Dec 10, 2023

@giuseppe PTAL

@karuboniru You either need to add a test or add the [ no new tests needed ] flag to your description.

@karuboniru
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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)

Copy link
Member

@giuseppe giuseppe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 11, 2023

[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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 11, 2023
Copy link

A friendly reminder that this PR had no activity for 30 days.

@karuboniru
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is there anything missing or we are just waiting for something else?

@giuseppe
Copy link
Member

@rhatdan fine to merge?

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jan 11, 2024

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 11, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 83f89db into containers:main Jan 11, 2024
88 of 92 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Apr 15, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 15, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note stale-pr
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants