-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
Configure the Selinux type tag when the AppArmor is disabled regardless of EnableSelinux flag #1339
Conversation
…ss of EnableSelinux flag The SELinux type tag needs to be configured independent of EnableSelinux flag, because the SELinux can be active on the node regardless if the SELinux feature is enabled or not in the operator. For instance, on Flatcar Linux SELinux type tag needs to be set to 'unconfined_t' instead of 'spc_t' even though SELinux is disabled in order to get the containers to start.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ccojocar, pjbgf 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 |
The failure is orthogonal, and is highlighting we need to bump the ubi-image. |
I am overriding the |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This introduced a regression on Flatcar Linux. The SELinux type tag needs to be configured independent of EnableSelinux flag, because the SELinux can be active on the node regardless if the SELinux feature is enabled or not in the operator.
For instance, on Flatcar Linux SELinux type tag needs to be set to 'unconfined_t' instead of 'spc_t'
even though SELinux is disabled in order to get the containers to start.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Does this PR have test?
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?