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.

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

Fix platform role detection for Power and Z architecture #516

Conversation

rhmdnd
Copy link

@rhmdnd rhmdnd commented May 8, 2024

We recently updated Compliance Operator support to only load ocp4
profiles when running on Power and Z systems, since those are currently
the only profiles that are supported on those architectures.

In the process, we added architecture detection so the operator knows if
it's running OpenShift on amd64, ppc64le, or s390x. However, the
operator will also create default scan settings based on the
architecture and platform, which didn't take these into account.

Since we were using new architecture/platform keys in the support
mapping, they weren't being handled correctly when the operator created
the default scan settings. This caused it to use a generic catch all to
schedule scans on all available nodes. While this is fine for some
platforms, like EKS, it doesn't work when nodes are in different node
pools because they will constantly get different results and be
INCONSISTENT.

We recently updated Compliance Operator support to only load ocp4
profiles when running on Power and Z systems, since those are currently
the only profiles that are supported on those architectures.

In the process, we added architecture detection so the operator knows if
it's running OpenShift on amd64, ppc64le, or s390x. However, the
operator will also create default scan settings based on the
architecture and platform, which didn't take these into account.

Since we were using new architecture/platform keys in the support
mapping, they weren't being handled correctly when the operator created
the default scan settings. This caused it to use a generic catch all to
schedule scans on all available nodes. While this is fine for some
platforms, like EKS, it doesn't work when nodes are in different node
pools because they will constantly get different results and be
INCONSISTENT.
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from jhrozek and Vincent056 May 8, 2024 01:53
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label May 8, 2024
@rhmdnd rhmdnd requested review from yuumasato, xiaojiey and BhargaviGudi and removed request for jhrozek May 8, 2024 01:53
Copy link
Member

@yuumasato yuumasato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 8, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rhmdnd, yuumasato

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

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit fd670ef into ComplianceAsCode:master May 8, 2024
13 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.

2 participants