Create volume path before state initialization #23524
Conversation
Strictly speaking we don't need the path yet, but it existing prevents a lot of strangeness in our path-checking logic to validate the current Podman configuration, as it was the only path that might not exist this early in init. Fixes containers#23515 Signed-off-by: Matt Heon <mheon@redhat.com>
openshift-ci
bot
added
release-note
approved
|
LGTM |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, mheon 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 |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 9e8c4c4
into
containers:main
| # Remove volume directory. This doesn't break Podman but can cause our DB | ||
| # validation to break if Podman misbehaves. Ref: | ||
| # /~https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/23515 | ||
| # (Unfortunately, we can't just use a new directory, that will just trip DB | ||
| # validation that it doesn't match the path we were using before) | ||
| rm -rf $PODMAN_TMPDIR/$HOME/.local/share/containers/storage/volumes | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you actually test this with an older podman binary? This test always passes without your patch for me locally so this is a NOP I think.
|
Before I forget again |
|
@mheon: new pull request created: #23647 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
Thanks, @mheon ! |
stale-locking-app
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
Strictly speaking we don't need the path yet, but it existing prevents a lot of strangeness in our path-checking logic to validate the current Podman configuration, as it was the only path that might not exist this early in init.
Fixes #23515
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?