[RELEASE-1.7][BACKPORT] Allow setting seccompProfile to enable using … #91
Conversation
|
/lgtm |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
/hold debugging ci |
|
Seems activator is not being removed. activator_test.go:133: Did not observe activator-764744bb7d-6qv2f to actually be deleted: pod "activator-764744bb7d-6qv2f" is not in desired state, got: <*>&Pod{ObjectMeta:{activator-764744bb7d-6qv2f activator-764744bb7d- knative-serving dbf1bbbe-9905-4dfd-a5fa-c0d36041a145 96663 0 2022-12-21 08:07:06 +0000 UTC 2022-12-21 09:01:50 +0000 UTC 0xc0008cb348 map[app:activator app.kubernetes.io/component:activator app.kubernetes.io/name:knative-serving app.kubernetes.io/version:v1.2.0 pod-template-hash:764744bb7d role:activator] map[cluster-autoscaler.kubernetes.io/safe-to-evict:false |
|
/test 411-e2e-aws-ocp-411 |
…restricted security profile (#1284) (#9) * Allow setting seccompProfile to enable using restricted security profile (knative#13401) * fix features cm Co-authored-by: Evan Anderson <evan.k.anderson@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Evan Anderson <evan.k.anderson@gmail.com>
|
/unhold |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: nak3, ReToCode, skonto The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| # - RunAsNonRoot | ||
| # - SupplementalGroups | ||
| # - RunAsUser | ||
| # - SeccompProfile |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just leaving a note as a FYI:
This yaml file is not used but https://github.com/openshift-knative/serving/blob/release-v1.7/openshift/release/artifacts/2-serving-core.yaml#L5000-L5006 is used on 1.7 branch (release-next & main fixed).
This is a comment line change so I think we don't need to update it, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm I see, was it used in 1.6 (https://github.com/openshift-knative/serving/pull/9/files)? Maybe @skonto just added that for completeness sake?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes that was meant for completeness back then.
Cherry-pick of #9