Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x by ricardobranco777 · Pull Request #13149 · containerd/containerd

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T16:46:35Z

Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x

The test image ghcr.io/containerd/volume-copy-up:2.1 does not include a manifest for s390x, causing the test to fail with:
"no manifest found for platform: not found".

The test image ghcr.io/containerd/volume-copy-up:2.1 does not include a manifest for s390x, causing the test to fail with: "no manifest found for platform: not found". Signed-off-by: Ricardo Branco <rbranco@suse.de>

samuelkarp

We don't actually have access to any s390x machines to test on, so we can't really provide any guarantees about containerd behavior on that architecture. With that said, I'm fine accepting a test skip here. If s390x needs further architecture-specific changes within the core of containerd, that will probably need to be a different discussion around both machine access and maintainer bandwidth to troubleshoot.

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T17:55:20Z

We don't actually have access to any s390x machines to test on, so we can't really provide any guarantees about containerd behavior on that architecture. With that said, I'm fine accepting a test skip here. If s390x needs further architecture-specific changes within the core of containerd, that will probably need to be a different discussion around both machine access and maintainer bandwidth to troubleshoot.

We're running these tests on s390x :)

mxpv

Curious, is this the only test that fails on s390x ? As Sam pointed out, we don't run these tests on s390x, so it's a blind area for us. But also I'm surprised that that's the only problematic test for this architecture.

Either way, should be ok to have this PR in.

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T18:00:10Z

We're running these tests on s390x :)

You are, we (the containerd project) are not.

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T18:08:59Z

Curious, is this the only test that fails on s390x ? As Sam pointed out, we don't run these tests on s390x, so it's a blind area for us. But also I'm surprised that that's the only problematic test for this architecture.

Yes. I tested this on the containerd v1.7.29 we have on SLES 16.0. We don't test critest on SLES because cri-tools is only packaged for openSUSE Tumbleweed.

Will test containerd v2.2.1 and report back.

Here you can see an overview of the tests we run on openSUSE Tumbleweed:

https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/blob/master/tests/containers/README.md

We expect to fix coverage for s390x on openqa.opensuse.org hopefully this year.

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T19:00:39Z

Curious, is this the only test that fails on s390x ? As Sam pointed out, we don't run these tests on s390x, so it's a blind area for us. But also I'm surprised that that's the only problematic test for this architecture.

Either way, should be ok to have this PR in.

I tested containerd v2.2.1 on SLES 16.1 and I only got these failures due to missing test images:

--- FAIL: TestImagePullWithConcurrentUnpacks (1.48s)
--- FAIL: TestIDMappedOverlay/TestIDMappedOverlay-SingleMapping (0.84s)
--- FAIL: TestIDMappedOverlay/TestIDMappedOverlay-MultiMapping (1.02s)
--- FAIL: TestIDMappedOverlay/TestIDMappedOverlay-SingleMapping-ParallelUnpack (0.86s)
--- FAIL: TestIDMappedOverlay (2.72s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/WritableRootFSMultipleMap (1.47s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/ReadonlyRootFSMultipleMap (0.91s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/CheckSetUidBitMultipleMap (0.85s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/WritableRootFS (0.91s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/ReadonlyRootFS (1.86s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces/CheckSetUidBit (0.85s)
--- FAIL: TestUserNamespaces (6.85s)

I opened a new PR for these.

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T19:04:40Z

Yes. I tested this on the containerd v1.7.29 we have on SLES 16.0.

I assume you want this cherry-picked back to release/1.7 then?

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T19:08:55Z

Yes. I tested this on the containerd v1.7.29 we have on SLES 16.0.

I assume you want this cherry-picked back to release/1.7 then?

It wouldn't hurt but, unlike Fedora/Redhat, we don't ship $package-tests packages. SLES/Tumbleweed have an older containerd version because it's tied to Docker and in k3s they vendor a more recent containerd. I hope we eventually upgrade it.

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T19:10:07Z

What's your use-case for this then? How are you checking out the code and running tests? Are you mostly looking at future releases (upcoming 2.3 soon)?

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T19:13:17Z

What's your use-case for this then? How are you checking out the code and running tests? Are you mostly looking at future releases (upcoming 2.3 soon)?

We run tests independently in openQA. We backport test fixes as needed. There are some build-time tests but I don't know how is the packager doing it. How can we backport this one to 1.7.x?

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T19:16:39Z

If you need it on release/1.7 we can take that change. I'm just trying to understand if you need it, and which branches you'd need the change on.

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T19:17:11Z

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:17:21Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request created: #13152

Details

In response to this:

If you need it on release/1.7 we can take that change. I'm just trying to understand if you need it, and which branches you'd need the change on.

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:17:58Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request created: #13153

Details

In response to this:

If you need it on release/1.7 we can take that change. I'm just trying to understand if you need it, and which branches you'd need the change on.

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:17:58Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request could not be created: failed to create pull request against containerd/containerd#release/1.7 from head k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/1.7: status code 422 not one of [201], body: {"message":"Validation Failed","errors":[{"resource":"PullRequest","code":"custom","message":"A pull request already exists for k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/1.7."}],"documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/pulls#create-a-pull-request","status":"422"}

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:18:34Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request could not be created: failed to create pull request against containerd/containerd#release/2.1 from head k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/2.1: status code 422 not one of [201], body: {"message":"Validation Failed","errors":[{"resource":"PullRequest","code":"custom","message":"A pull request already exists for k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/2.1."}],"documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/pulls#create-a-pull-request","status":"422"}

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:18:35Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request created: #13154

Details

In response to this:

If you need it on release/1.7 we can take that change. I'm just trying to understand if you need it, and which branches you'd need the change on.

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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.

ricardobranco777 · 2026-04-02T19:18:38Z

If you need it on release/1.7 we can take that change. I'm just trying to understand if you need it, and which branches you'd need the change on.

/cherrypick release/1.7 /cherrypick release/2.1 /cherrypick release/2.2

We use 1.7 on SLES & openSUSE, and SUSE Rancher uses 2.0.

Thanks a lot.

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot · 2026-04-02T19:19:11Z

@samuelkarp: new pull request could not be created: failed to create pull request against containerd/containerd#release/2.2 from head k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/2.2: status code 422 not one of [201], body: {"message":"Validation Failed","errors":[{"resource":"PullRequest","code":"custom","message":"A pull request already exists for k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot:cherry-pick-13149-to-release/2.2."}],"documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/pulls#create-a-pull-request","status":"422"}

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick release/1.7
/cherrypick release/2.1
/cherrypick release/2.2

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.

samuelkarp · 2026-04-02T19:20:39Z

SUSE Rancher uses 2.0

2.0 is currently EOL: https://containerd.io/releases/#current-state-of-containerd-releases

Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x

2b70857

The test image ghcr.io/containerd/volume-copy-up:2.1 does not include a manifest for s390x, causing the test to fail with: "no manifest found for platform: not found". Signed-off-by: Ricardo Branco <rbranco@suse.de>

github-project-automation bot added this to Pull Request Review Apr 2, 2026

github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs Triage in Pull Request Review Apr 2, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XS label Apr 2, 2026

dosubot bot added the kind/test label Apr 2, 2026

ricardobranco777 mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

Fix containerd test on s390x os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse#25197

Merged

samuelkarp approved these changes Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

mxpv approved these changes Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Triage to Review In Progress in Pull Request Review Apr 2, 2026

mxpv added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 2, 2026

Merged via the queue into containerd:main with commit 370010a Apr 2, 2026
54 checks passed

github-project-automation bot moved this from Review In Progress to Done in Pull Request Review Apr 2, 2026

ricardobranco777 deleted the skips390x branch April 2, 2026 18:43

samuelkarp added cherry-pick/1.7.x Change to be cherry picked to release/1.7 branch cherry-pick/2.1.x Change to be cherry picked to release/2.1 branch cherry-pick/2.2.x Change to be cherry picked to release/2.2 branch labels Apr 2, 2026

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

[release/1.7] Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x #13152

Merged

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

[release/2.1] Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x #13153

Merged

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

[release/2.2] Skip TestExportAndImportMultiLayer on s390x #13154

Merged

Conversation

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

samuelkarp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

mxpv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardobranco777 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

samuelkarp commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading