Skip to content

Conversation

@niteeshkd
Copy link

PR for step#5 of checklist for v0.16.0

@niteeshkd niteeshkd requested a review from a team as a code owner September 24, 2025 19:17
Copy link
Member

@fidencio fidencio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, thanks @niteeshkd!

@fitzthum
Copy link
Member

Ubuntu 22.04 test is failing. Looks like we're low on disk space. Not sure what the root cause is.

cc @wainersm

fidencio and others added 4 commits September 25, 2025 09:29
Those runner usually have ~14GB free for utilization, which is rather
low, mainly when we take into consideration the size of the payloads we
have (due the recent switch to zst, on the Kata Containers side).

With this said, let's take the approach already taken by peer-pods (and
thanks Steve for the tip :-)), and free as much space as possible before
running our tests.

Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <ffidenciodeo@nvidia.com>
Update the enclave-cc runtime payloads to point to the v0.11.0
release of enclave-cc and update the pre-reqs payload.

Signed-off-by: Niteesh Dubey <niteesh@us.ibm.com>
Update Kata payloads to 3.21.0 and bump the pre-reqs
payload for default, peer-pods and s390x ccruntimes

Signed-off-by: Niteesh Dubey <niteesh@us.ibm.com>
Update operator version from v0.15.0 to v0.16.0.

Signed-off-by: Niteesh Dubey <niteesh@us.ibm.com>
@fidencio
Copy link
Member

Ubuntu 22.04 test is failing. Looks like we're low on disk space. Not sure what the root cause is.

Root cause is probably the Kata Containers payload increasing in size, due to our switch to Zstd.
I've added a commit to work this issue around and force-updated NIteesh's PR.

@mythi
Copy link
Contributor

mythi commented Sep 25, 2025

NYDUS_SNAPSHOTTER_VERSION = v0.15.4?

@fidencio
Copy link
Member

NYDUS_SNAPSHOTTER_VERSION = v0.15.4?

Are you suggesting to bump the nydus snapshotter version? It'd require a bump on the pre-req daemonset, and I don't think that scenario (the update) was tested before?

@fidencio
Copy link
Member

Amazing, as the change I made is on the action itself, and it's a pull_request_targetm, we need to run the tests from an internal branch, which I just triggered.
See the run here: https://github.com/confidential-containers/operator/actions/runs/18000995615/job/51210022309

@mythi
Copy link
Contributor

mythi commented Sep 25, 2025

NYDUS_SNAPSHOTTER_VERSION = v0.15.4?

Are you suggesting to bump the nydus snapshotter version? It'd require a bump on the pre-req daemonset, and I don't think that scenario (the update) was tested before?

The version bump is on our release checklist. We've forgotten do it a few times so take my comment as a reminder. @niteeshkd did something similar in #532.

@stevenhorsman
Copy link
Member

NYDUS_SNAPSHOTTER_VERSION = v0.15.4?

Are you suggesting to bump the nydus snapshotter version? It'd require a bump on the pre-req daemonset, and I don't think that scenario (the update) was tested before?

The version bump is on our release checklist. We've forgotten do it a few times so take my comment as a reminder. @niteeshkd did something similar in #532.

It was done previously to sync with the kata-containers versions that has been tested. This is 0.15.2 still, so I don't think this is applicable?

@mythi
Copy link
Contributor

mythi commented Sep 25, 2025

NYDUS_SNAPSHOTTER_VERSION = v0.15.4?

Are you suggesting to bump the nydus snapshotter version? It'd require a bump on the pre-req daemonset, and I don't think that scenario (the update) was tested before?

The version bump is on our release checklist. We've forgotten do it a few times so take my comment as a reminder. @niteeshkd did something similar in #532.

It was done previously to sync with the kata-containers versions that has been tested. This is 0.15.2 still, so I don't think this is applicable?

Then it makes sense to keep the req payload as it is.

@fidencio
Copy link
Member

https://github.com/confidential-containers/operator/actions/runs/18000995615/job/51222679357 -- this is the run manually triggered with all the tests passing. I had to re-run the SEV-SNP one, but it passed on the second run.

Copy link
Member

@stevenhorsman stevenhorsman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Thanks @niteeshkd & @fidencio!

@fidencio
Copy link
Member

This PR requires someone with admin powers to merge (which I have, but I'd like someone else with admin powers to do so, so we share the responsibility ;-)).

Copy link
Member

@fitzthum fitzthum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

let's keep a close eye on the post-merge jobs

@fidencio fidencio merged commit c43f953 into confidential-containers:main Sep 25, 2025
39 of 44 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants