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

spec: clamp rlimits without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE #24696

Conversation

giuseppe
Copy link
Member

commit 5ebba75 implemented this behaviour for rootless users and later commit
0a69aef changed it when in a user namespace, but the same limitation exists for root without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. Change the check to use the clamp to the current values if running without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.

Closes: #24692

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Now default ulimits are clamped also for root when running without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE

@giuseppe giuseppe added the No New Tests Allow PR to proceed without adding regression tests label Nov 27, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added release-note approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Nov 27, 2024
@giuseppe
Copy link
Member Author

I've not added a test as it requires to run without a capability

@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the clamp-ulimits-root-no-sys-resource branch from c447288 to 4b38031 Compare November 27, 2024 17:20
commit 5ebba75 implemented this
behaviour for rootless users and later commit
0a69aef changed it when in a user
namespace, but the same limitation exists for root without
CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.  Change the check to use the clamp to the current
values if running without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.

Closes: containers#24692

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the clamp-ulimits-root-no-sys-resource branch from 4b38031 to 4b38294 Compare November 27, 2024 20:35
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 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
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 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 Nov 28, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, lsm5, Luap99

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:
  • OWNERS [Luap99,giuseppe,lsm5]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Nov 28, 2024

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 28, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit b965d7b into containers:main Nov 28, 2024
80 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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. No New Tests Allow PR to proceed without adding regression tests release-note
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fail to run privileged nested container, on fedora 41
3 participants