MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le #2589

pranitaT · 2024-12-02T07:02:38Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR enables the Security Profiles Operator for the ppc64le architecture, providing support for managing seccomp and SELinux profiles. The changes have been tested and verified using logenricher to ensure functionality and compliance.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MULTIARCH-4654

Does this PR have test?

N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:

Tested for compatibility with seccomp and SELinux profiles on the ppc64le architecture.
Verified functionality using logenricher.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le architecture with support for seccomp and SELinux profile management.

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-12-02T07:02:41Z

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

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.

linux-foundation-easycla · 2024-12-02T07:02:42Z

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

✅ login: pranitaT / name: Pranita Turrey (afbcb5b)

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-12-02T07:02:47Z

Welcome @pranitaT!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/security-profiles-operator 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/security-profiles-operator has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-12-02T07:02:48Z

Hi @pranitaT. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-12-02T07:02:52Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pranitaT
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jaormx for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

saschagrunert · 2024-12-02T07:57:23Z

Thank you for the PR @pranitaT, do you mind signing the CLA?

prb112 · 2024-12-02T18:57:27Z

Hey @saschagrunert I shared with Pranita how our team signs the CLA. We'll get this done a.s.a.p. Thank you for the time, Paul

prb112 · 2024-12-02T19:02:44Z

deploy/base/clusterserviceversion.yaml

+    operatorframework.io/arch.amd64: supported
+    operatorframework.io/arch.ppc64le: supported


Suggested change

operatorframework.io/arch.amd64: supported

operatorframework.io/arch.ppc64le: supported

We don't need the arches. I think arm/amd64 are already supported and we are adding s390x.

prb112 · 2024-12-02T19:05:16Z

internal/pkg/daemon/bpfrecorder/generate/main.go

@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ func generateBpfObj(builder *strings.Builder) error {
 	builder.WriteString(header)
 	builder.WriteString("var bpfObjects = map[string][]byte{\n")

-	for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64"} {
+	for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64", "ppc64le", "s390x"} {


Suggested change

for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64", "ppc64le", "s390x"} {

for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64"} {

sorry based on testing, I don't think we need this anymore.

prb112 · 2024-12-02T19:05:55Z

internal/pkg/daemon/bpfrecorder/generate/main.go

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ const (
 	docsHeader  = "The following Kernels are supported to run the BPF recorder " +
 		"beside those which already expose `/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux`. " +
 		"Please note that at least a Linux kernel version 5.8 is required " +
-		"to use the bpf recorder.\n\n"
+		"to use the bpf recorder, and this includes support for ppc64le and s390x architectures.\n\n"


Suggested change

"to use the bpf recorder, and this includes support for ppc64le and s390x architectures.\n\n"

"to use the bpf recorder.\n\n"

saschagrunert · 2024-12-03T09:23:46Z

Please rebase to fix the CI

…dded fixes for seccomp and SELinux profiles, and verified functionality with logenricher.

saschagrunert · 2024-12-04T07:58:02Z

/ok-to-test

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-12-04T09:16:10Z

@pranitaT: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-security-profiles-operator-verify	`afbcb5b`	link	true	`/test pull-security-profiles-operator-verify`
pull-security-profiles-operator-build	`afbcb5b`	link	true	`/test pull-security-profiles-operator-build`
pull-security-profiles-operator-test-unit	`afbcb5b`	link	true	`/test pull-security-profiles-operator-test-unit`
pull-security-profiles-operator-build-image	`afbcb5b`	link	true	`/test pull-security-profiles-operator-build-image`
pull-security-profiles-operator-test-e2e	`afbcb5b`	link	true	`/test pull-security-profiles-operator-test-e2e`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

k8s-ci-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from saschagrunert and Vincent056 December 2, 2024 07:02

prb112 reviewed Dec 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 4, 2024

pranitaT force-pushed the nov24-ppc64le-support branch 2 times, most recently from 274e229 to 57bc010 Compare December 4, 2024 06:35

MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le, a…

afbcb5b

…dded fixes for seccomp and SELinux profiles, and verified functionality with logenricher.

pranitaT force-pushed the nov24-ppc64le-support branch from 57bc010 to afbcb5b Compare December 4, 2024 06:40

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 4, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le #2589

MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le #2589

pranitaT commented Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Dec 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

saschagrunert commented Dec 2, 2024

prb112 commented Dec 2, 2024

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

saschagrunert commented Dec 3, 2024

saschagrunert commented Dec 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 4, 2024

		operatorframework.io/arch.amd64: supported
		operatorframework.io/arch.ppc64le: supported

	for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64", "ppc64le", "s390x"} {
	for _, arch := range []string{"amd64", "arm64"} {

	"to use the bpf recorder, and this includes support for ppc64le and s390x architectures.\n\n"
	"to use the bpf recorder.\n\n"

MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le #2589

Are you sure you want to change the base?

MULTIARCH-4654: Enabled the Security Profiles Operator for ppc64le #2589

Conversation

pranitaT commented Dec 2, 2024

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MULTIARCH-4654

Does this PR have test?

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Dec 2, 2024 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 2, 2024

saschagrunert commented Dec 2, 2024

prb112 commented Dec 2, 2024

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

prb112 Dec 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

saschagrunert commented Dec 3, 2024

saschagrunert commented Dec 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Dec 4, 2024

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Dec 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading