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

tracker for podman 2.x progress #575

Closed
dustymabe opened this issue Jul 17, 2020 · 13 comments
Closed

tracker for podman 2.x progress #575

dustymabe opened this issue Jul 17, 2020 · 13 comments

Comments

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member

dustymabe commented Jul 17, 2020

In #560 we elected to pin podman 1.9.3 in our testing and stable streams for now. This ticket will serve as a tracker for existing issues with podman 2.x that could or should block 2.x from hitting testing/stable.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

I switched over my weechat node today to the next stream and the container didn't come up because of containers/podman#6734. Running systemd in a container is an important use case. We're hitting the issue because running systemd in a container on cgroups v1 regressed.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

FYI: If you'd like to test out podman 2.x to find if your containers still work we have docs on how to switch between streams. You should target next.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

containers/podman#6734 is closed now with the fix in containers/podman#7339. This landed in the 2.0.5 release with containers/podman@ce1389b:

[dustymabe@media podman ((v2.0.5))]$ git tag --contains ce1389b
v2.0.5

I'll try to verify this fixes the problem I was seeing at least.

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Aug 25, 2020

I had containers/podman#6879 opened for podman 2.0 but this should be fixed now with 2.0.5.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

I had containers/podman#6879 opened for podman 2.0 but this should be fixed now with 2.0.5.

Added it to the list in the description. Thanks!

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

I just opened containers/podman#7441 and added it to the list. Running systemd in a rootless container still does not work.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

The fix for containers/podman#7441 has been backported to podman 2.0.6 and I've confirmed it seems to fix the problem. I'm thinking that we should get that into next-devel as soon as there is an rpm available for 2.0.6 and then do an ad-hoc next release this week.

Then we could switch over testing in next week's round of releases.

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

dustymabe commented Sep 2, 2020

Today's next stream release (32.20200901.1.0) includes podman 2.0.6, which should fix all outstanding issues mentioned in this ticket. If all goes well it will land in testing next week. Please give the next stream a spin and report issues!

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

The fix for this went into testing stream release 32.20200907.2.0. Please try out the new release and report issues.

@dustymabe dustymabe added the status/pending-stable-release Fixed upstream and in testing. Waiting on stable release. label Sep 16, 2020
@zyclonite
Copy link

@dustymabe could below error be related to that upgrade?

podman[]: Error: requested OCI runtime runc is not compatible with NoCgroups: invalid argument

we are running containers in a systemd unit with --name %N --conmon-pidfile %t/%N.pid --cgroups disabled --log-driver journald so systemd has always control over the process (also following shutdown order)

should cgroups disabled still work?

tested on the current 32.20200907.* releases

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

hey @zyclonite - can you open a new issue for this and we can discuss it more there? When you open the new issue can you mention what version you were upgrading from that your systemd unit worked in?

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member Author

The fix for this went into stable stream release 32.20200907.3.0.

@dustymabe dustymabe removed the status/pending-stable-release Fixed upstream and in testing. Waiting on stable release. label Sep 28, 2020
@zyclonite
Copy link

@dustymabe did that now, added already our findings as well #634

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants