vendor: bump seccomp/libseccomp-golang to f33da4d #3465
Conversation
|
Looks like there's some uses of |
crazy-max
force-pushed
the
update-libseccomp
branch
from
4022d05 to
d7f482d
Compare
| @@ -113,8 +113,8 @@ func InitSeccomp(config *configs.Seccomp) (int, error) { | |||
| // Convert Libcontainer Action to Libseccomp ScmpAction | |||
| func getAction(act configs.Action, errnoRet *uint) (libseccomp.ScmpAction, error) { | |||
| switch act { | |||
| case configs.Kill: | |||
| return libseccomp.ActKill, nil | |||
| case configs.Kill, configs.KillThread: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if one of configs.Kill also should be deprecated on this side 🤔 (not for this PR, just thinking out loud?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have the same problem in libcontainer/config -- Kill and KillThread are two distinct constants. Guess it makes sense to deprecate the former.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup; that was my thought as well
I'm ok doing that separately, but something we should probably do
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh well, it's a bit bigger than I thought; see #3466
@crazy-max feel free to cherry-pick that commit to here.
I also think we should really deprecate ACT_KILL, but it should be done in the runtime-spec repo first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
@crazy-max can you swap the order of the commits (assuming both |
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <[email protected]>
crazy-max
force-pushed
the
update-libseccomp
branch
from
d7f482d to
df2bc13
Compare
OCI spec added SCMP_ACT_KILL_THREAD and SCMP_ACT_KILL_PROCESS almost two years ago ([1], [2]), but runc support was half-finished [3]. Add these actions, and modify the test case to check them. In addition, "runc features" now lists the new actions. [1] opencontainers/runtime-spec#1044 [2] opencontainers/runtime-spec#1064 [3] https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pulls/3204 Fixes: 4a4d4f1 Signed-off-by: Kir Kolyshkin <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit e74fdeb)
|
@thaJeztah I see your LGTM, but you probably forgot to actually "Accept" the PR |
|
@thaJeztah @kolyshkin is there a milestone that includes this PR to fix the clang issue? cc @tonistiigi |
kolyshkin
added
kind/dependency
backport/1.1-todo
kolyshkin
added
backport/1.1-done
fixes clang issue seccomp/libseccomp-golang#90.
@thaJeztah there are other changes while vendoring it seccomp/libseccomp-golang@3879420...f33da4d. not sure about the impact of them on runc.
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax [email protected]