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

[1.0] Don't freeze cgroup on update for systemd cgroup v2 #3092

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 15, 2021

Conversation

kolyshkin
Copy link
Contributor

@kolyshkin kolyshkin commented Jul 15, 2021

Backport of #3067 to release-1.0. Cherry-picked with a trivial conflict due to missing b60e2ed.

Changelog entry

 - cgroup/systemd/v2: don't freeze cgroup on Set. (#3092)

Run device update tests on cgroup v2, and add a test verifying that we
don't allow access to devices when we don't intend to.

Signed-off-by: Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>
(cherry picked from commit d41a273)
Signed-off-by: Kir Kolyshkin <kolyshkin@gmail.com>
Since device updates in cgroup v2 are atomic for systemd, there is no
need to freeze the processes before running the updates.

Signed-off-by: Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>
(cherry picked from commit f33be7c, trivial conflict
 due to missing commit b60e2ed)
Signed-off-by: Kir Kolyshkin <kolyshkin@gmail.com>
@kolyshkin
Copy link
Contributor Author

It seems that backport/1.0-pr kind of duplicates the 1.0.x milestone, but maybe I'm missing something

@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented Jul 15, 2021

It seems that backport/1.0-pr kind of duplicates the 1.0.x milestone, but maybe I'm missing something

The 1.0.x milestone is used for issues and PRs that are intended to be included in 1.0.x but are made against master, while backport/1.0-pr is for the actual backport PRs (making it a slightly more robust than just putting [1.0] in the title). But arguably backport/1.0-target (which was will-backport-to/1.0.x) is a duplicate of the milestone.

Copy link
Member

@cyphar cyphar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@cyphar cyphar merged commit e14c134 into opencontainers:release-1.0 Jul 15, 2021
@kolyshkin
Copy link
Contributor Author

CI has failed on CentOS during merge commit testing: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/runs/3081256160?check_suite_focus=true. This has definitely nothing to do with the code in here, but a manifestation of occasional "unable to freeze" on CentOS 7 which we see from time to time (and which I've tried to fix in #2941, #2918, #2791, #2774).

I have checked and re-checked that in #3094 but got no more failures. Guess it was a glitch; hopefully we'll see less of that once #3088 is implemented.

breakings added a commit to breakings/packages that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2021
This is the first stable release in the 1.0 branch, fixing a few medium
and high priority issues with runc 1.0.0, including a few that affect
Kubernetes' usage of libcontainer.

Bugfixes:

- Fixed occasional runc exec/run failure ("interrupted system call") on an
  Azure volume. ([#3074](opencontainers/runc#3074))
- Fixed "unable to find groups ... token too long" error with /etc/group
  containing lines longer than 64K characters. ([#3079](opencontainers/runc#3079))
- cgroup/systemd/v1: fix leaving cgroup frozen after Set if a parent cgroup is
  frozen. This is a regression in 1.0.0, not affecting runc itself but some
  of libcontainer users (e.g Kubernetes). ([#3085](opencontainers/runc#3085))
- cgroupv2: bpf: Ignore inaccessible existing programs in case of
  permission error when handling replacement of existing bpf cgroup
  programs. This fixes a regression in 1.0.0, where some SELinux
  policies would block runc from being able to run entirely. ([#3087](opencontainers/runc#3087))
- cgroup/systemd/v2: don't freeze cgroup on Set. ([#3092](opencontainers/runc#3092))
- cgroup/systemd/v1: avoid unnecessary freeze on Set. ([#3093](opencontainers/runc#3093))
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants