CNTRLPLANE-1285: enable readOnlyRootFilesystem

[dusk125]

No description provided.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dusk125: This pull request references CNTRLPLANE-1285 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dusk125
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign romanbednar for approval. For more information see the 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

[openshift-ci]

@dusk125: 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
ci/prow/e2e-openstack	e01f79a	link	false	/test e2e-openstack
ci/prow/aws-efs-sts-cross-account-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	false	/test aws-efs-sts-cross-account-operator-e2e
ci/prow/aws-efs-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	true	/test aws-efs-operator-e2e
ci/prow/aws-efs-single-zone-cross-account-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	true	/test aws-efs-single-zone-cross-account-operator-e2e
ci/prow/aws-efs-single-zone-operator-e2e-extended	e01f79a	link	false	/test aws-efs-single-zone-operator-e2e-extended
ci/prow/aws-efs-cross-account-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	false	/test aws-efs-cross-account-operator-e2e
ci/prow/e2e-openstack-cinder-csi	e01f79a	link	true	/test e2e-openstack-cinder-csi
ci/prow/e2e-azure-file-csi-extended	e01f79a	link	false	/test e2e-azure-file-csi-extended
ci/prow/smb-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	false	/test smb-operator-e2e
ci/prow/e2e-azurestack-csi	e01f79a	link	false	/test e2e-azurestack-csi
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade	e01f79a	link	true	/test e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-azure-csi-extended	e01f79a	link	false	/test e2e-azure-csi-extended
ci/prow/aws-efs-single-zone-operator-e2e	e01f79a	link	true	/test aws-efs-single-zone-operator-e2e
ci/prow/aws-efs-operator-e2e-extended	e01f79a	link	false	/test aws-efs-operator-e2e-extended
ci/prow/e2e-openstack-manila-csi	e01f79a	link	true	/test e2e-openstack-manila-csi
ci/prow/e2e-azure-file-csi	e01f79a	link	true	/test e2e-azure-file-csi
ci/prow/hypershift-e2e-openstack-aws-csi-manila	e01f79a	link	true	/test hypershift-e2e-openstack-aws-csi-manila

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

[dfajmon]

@dobsonj
How does privileged interact with readOnlyRootFilesystem? Will this make any change since we are already running it as privileged?

[dusk125]

/hold
for proper testing in 4.21

[chao007]

This only add the controller sidecar, did not add readOnlyRootFilesystem to driver node.
Do we need to add this parameter to drive node?

[tsmetana]

The driver assets should get the parameter from assets/common/readOnlyRootFilesystem.yaml: all of them get patched during the final assets generation IIUC. This actually might be problematic too since we can't exclude some of the drivers in case the readOnlyRootFilesystem would break them.

[stephenfin]

Potentially dumb question arising out of openshift/hypershift#6885: do we need to mount emptyDir to /tmp for all of these? I was expecting to see that here based on openshift/cluster-storage-operator#564

[openshift-merge-robot]

PR needs rebase.

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.

[dusk125]

Potentially dumb question arising out of openshift/hypershift#6885: do we need to mount emptyDir to /tmp for all of these? I was expecting to see that here based on openshift/cluster-storage-operator#564

Some need it, some don't. It really just depends on whether or not something needs to/expects to write to /tmp. I added it by default because usually it's a safe assumption that something will write to it, but in some cases it doesn't.... I should probably add it to these :)