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

rootless: not close more FDs than needed #2967

Merged

Conversation

giuseppe
Copy link
Member

we were previously closing as many FDs as they were open when we first
started Podman in the range (3-MAX-FD). This would cause issues if
there were empty intervals, as these FDs are later on used by the
Golang runtime. Store exactly what FDs were first open in a fd_set,
so that we can close exactly the FDs that were open at startup.

Closes: #2964

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano gscrivan@redhat.com

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe

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:

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 18, 2019
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Apr 18, 2019

LGTM. Great find @giuseppe

we were previously closing as many FDs as they were open when we first
started Podman in the range (3-MAX-FD).  This would cause issues if
there were empty intervals, as these FDs are later on used by the
Golang runtime.  Store exactly what FDs were first open in a fd_set,
so that we can close exactly the FDs that were open at startup.

Closes: containers#2964

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
Copy link
Member

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
But would like a head nod from @mheon

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Apr 18, 2019

LGTM! Good catch @giuseppe
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 18, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4d45f51 into containers:master Apr 18, 2019
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 26, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
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. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

go runtime panic of trying to re-add container with rootless pod
6 participants