libpod: make hasCapSysResource platform-specific #25275
Conversation
libpod/container_internal_freebsd.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| // hasCapSysResource returns whether the current process has CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. | ||
| func hasCapSysResource() (bool, error) { | ||
| return false, nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you extend the hard limits as root on freebsd? If so that should likely return true. Especially since the behavior before this new CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check was to behave like true does now.
The reason we added this check that on linux we need CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to raise the limit, default is 1048576 for NOFILE and NOFILE, so if a user has less we can not bump and instead just set it to the hard limit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Root can raise the hard limits on the host or (I think) inside a jail with the right privileges. I will change the stub to return true.
|
Cockpit tests failed for commit 61d76eb. @martinpitt, @jelly, @mvollmer please check. |
I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to CAP_SYS_RESOURCE on FreeBSD but for now, I have added a no-op stub which returns false. Signed-off-by: Doug Rabson <[email protected]>
dfr
force-pushed
the
freebsd-hascapresource
branch
from
61d76eb to
ab04109
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dfr, Luap99 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-ci
bot
added
the
approved
Luap99
added
the
No New Tests
|
/lgtm |
I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to CAP_SYS_RESOURCE on FreeBSD but for now, I have added a no-op stub which returns false.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?