-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
secex-data
volume hack is subject to races
#835
Comments
I wonder if there is a race condition in |
While this does seem like a podman issue, for now as a workaround we could apply the same method we use on the s390x builder to keep the volume from beeing garbage collected in the first place. This would go against the point of why we are using the volume in the first place, that is to prevent doing any configuration on other builders that is only really needed on one arch. But it should prevent this issue, as the volume would always be available. fedora-coreos-pipeline/multi-arch-builders/coreos-s390x-rhcos-builder.bu Lines 99 to 118 in dbc32b2
|
We'll be able to remove that "keep from being garbage collected" debt very soon as the fix for containers/podman#17051 is in podman @jschintag want to confirm the fix for containers/podman#17051 works as you expected? |
I tested it and it works. |
@jschintag is original issue described by this ticket still an issue? |
I mean as this is for non-s390x architectures, i would say yes, this could still happen. I did not hear anything about the race condition being fixed for podman. Did we ever even create a Issue over at https://github.com/containers/podman/issues for this? |
On non-s390x, we rely on the
--volume=secex-data:/data.secex:ro
switch we pass to podman incosa remote-session create
to just create an empty volume. This logic though is subject to races if we're creating multiple remote sessions onto the same non-s390x builder:(In this case, this happened in the
bump-lockfile
job, which often gets executed in parallel fortesting-devel
andnext-devel
.)Probably the simplest fix for this is to have it created at provisioning time. That way it's consistent with s390x too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: