[2.0] vendor c/image v5.5.2

[vrothberg]

Enable pagination until the search result reaches the limit, instead of
returning default 100 limit from registry API.

BZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866153
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg [email protected]

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vrothberg

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 [vrothberg]

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

[vrothberg]

@baude @mheon @QiWang19 PTAL

[mheon]

LGTM

[QiWang19]

LGTM

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

LGTM
May have missed the PR in my disaster of an inbox, but is this going into upstream too?

[QiWang19]

Do we need to remove the CLI check in this PR? Or I can open a PR after this vendor PR gets merged.

podman/cmd/podman/images/search.go

Lines 106 to 108 in 1deb4d1

	if searchOptions.Limit > 100 {
	return errors.Errorf("Limit %d is outside the range of [1, 100]", searchOptions.Limit)
	}

[mheon]

This needs a rebase on latest master, I think.

[mheon]

Ah, wait, this is against 2.0 - interesting.

[mheon]

Hm.
[+0868s] Error: container_linux.go:349: starting container process caused "error adding seccomp rule for syscall socket: requested action matches default action of filter": OCI runtime error

Exclusively on runc... I think we solved this with a runc bump on master?

[rhatdan]

Yup I am seeing the same failure on my v2.0 tests.

@cevich PTAL

[vrothberg]

Do we need to remove the CLI check in this PR? Or I can open a PR after this vendor PR gets merged.

podman/cmd/podman/images/search.go

Lines 106 to 108 in 1deb4d1

	if searchOptions.Limit > 100 {
	return errors.Errorf("Limit %d is outside the range of [1, 100]", searchOptions.Limit)
	}

Good catch, @QiWang19! I blindly vendored but can fix it here directly 👍

[cevich]

Yup I am seeing the same failure on my v2.0 tests.
@cevich PTAL

Yep, I'm on it. I think #7365 might fix this, but it's just a guess. I don't think anyone is aware of the actual underlying cause, but I was told it only affects Ubuntu VMs, Bent tried replacing runc, and so the other main difference is an older golang version (on this branch). If that doesn't work out...sheesh, I dunno where to turn next 😕

[vrothberg]

Rebased on @baude's fixes. Thanks!

[rhatdan]

/lgtm