Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Bidirectional mount propagation for hostroot #1290

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Bidirectional mount propagation for hostroot #1290

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion deployments/multus-daemonset-thick.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ spec:
readOnly: true
- name: hostroot
mountPath: /hostroot
mountPropagation: HostToContainer
mountPropagation: Bidirectional
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

don't we actually consider these yamls to be just examples ?

Why can't the downstreams that require it to be bi-directional use what they need ?

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact this is not the recommended configuration, required only for specific use cases, but still, we're advocating / instructing everyone to use it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are indeed examples, but, I think this more accurately represents a setup that's similar to what happens in a thin plugin mode on the host -- you'd see mounts in both directions. So, I think it's a valid setup and probably better for more cases at least.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I disagree, but don't have more arguments other than this is not the recommended configuration, and is required only for specific use cases.

Do we even know if this will work on openshift ?

env:
- name: MULTUS_NODE_NAME
valueFrom:
Expand Down
Loading