Silence a govulncheck noise:
```
Vulnerability #1: GO-2025-3595
Incorrect Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation in x/net in
golang.org/x/net
More info: https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3595
Module: golang.org/x/net
Found in: golang.org/x/net@v0.37.0
Fixed in: golang.org/x/net@v0.38.0
Your code is affected by 0 vulnerabilities.
This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 1
vulnerability in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call these
vulnerabilities.
```
Signed-off-by: Akihiro Suda <akihiro.suda.cz@hco.ntt.co.jp>
This implements container restore as described in:
https://kubernetes.io/blog/2022/12/05/forensic-container-checkpointing-alpha/#restore-checkpointed-container-standalone
For detailed step by step instruction also see contrib/checkpoint/checkpoint-restore-cri-test.sh
The code changes are based on changes I have done in Podman around 2018
and CRI-O around 2020.
The history behind restoring container via CRI/Kubernetes probably
requires some explanation. The initial proposal to bring
checkpoint/restore to Kubernetes was looking at pod checkpoint and
restoring and the corresponding CRI changes.
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cri-tools/pull/662https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97194
After discussing this topic for about two years another approach was
implemented as described in KEP-2008:
https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/2008
"Forensic Container Checkpointing" allowed us to separate checkpointing
from restoring. For the "Forensic Container Checkpointing" it is enough
to create a checkpoint of the container. Restoring is not necessary as
the analysis of the checkpoint archive can happen without restoring the
container.
While thinking about a way to restore a container it was by coincidence
that we started to look into restoring containers in Kubernetes via
Create and Start. The way it was done in CRI-O is to figure out during
Create if the container image is a checkpoint image and if that is true
we are using another code path. The same was implemented now with this
change in containerd.
With this change it is possible to restore the container from a
checkpoint tar archive that is created during checkpointing via CRI.
To restore a container via Kubernetes we convert the tar archive to an
OCI image as described in the kubernetes.io blog post from above. Using
this OCI image it is possible to restore a container in Kubernetes.
At this point I think it should be doable to restore containers in
CRI-O and containerd no matter if they have been created by containerd or
CRI-O. The biggest difference is the container metadata and that can
be adapted during restore.
Open items:
* It is not clear to me why restoring a container in containerd goes
through task/Create(). But as the restore code already exists this
change extended the existing code path to restore a container in
task/Create() to also restore a container through the CRI via
Create and Start.
* Automatic image pulling. containerd does not pull images
automatically if created via the CRI. There is an option in
crictl to pull images before starting, but that uses the CRI
image pull interface. It is still a separate pull and create
operation. Restoring containers from an OCI image is a bit
different. The checkpoint OCI image does not include the base
image, but just a reference to the image (NAME@DIGEST).
Using crictl with pulling will enable the pulling of the
checkpoint image, but not of the base image the checkpoint is
based on. So during preparation of the checkpoint containerd
will automatically pull the base image, but I was not able how
to pull an image blockingly in containerd. So there is a for
loop waiting for the container image to appear in the internal
store. I think this probably can be implemented better.
Anyway, this is a first step towards container restored in Kubernetes
when using containerd.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Reber <areber@redhat.com>
Update the dependency and the indirect golang.org/x/net version to align
with containerd itself, and to prevent a vulnerability being detected.
We should keep the versions <= versions used by containerd 1.7 to prevent
forcing users of containerd 1.7 in combination with the latest version
of the API module from having to update all their dependencies, but
this update should likely be fine (and aligns with 1.7).
Before this:
Scanning your code and 254 packages across 15 dependent modules for known vulnerabilities...
=== Symbol Results ===
Vulnerability #1: GO-2024-2687
HTTP/2 CONTINUATION flood in net/http
More info: https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-2687
Module: golang.org/x/net
Found in: golang.org/x/net@v0.21.0
Fixed in: golang.org/x/net@v0.23.0
Example traces found:
#1: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.ConnectionError.Error
#2: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.ErrCode.String
#3: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.FrameHeader.String
#4: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.FrameType.String
#5: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.Setting.String
#6: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.SettingID.String
#7: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.StreamError.Error
#8: services/content/v1/content_ttrpc.pb.go:272:35: content.ttrpccontentClient.Write calls ttrpc.Client.NewStream, which eventually calls http2.chunkWriter.Write
#9: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.connError.Error
#10: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.duplicatePseudoHeaderError.Error
#11: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.headerFieldNameError.Error
#12: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.headerFieldValueError.Error
#13: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.pseudoHeaderError.Error
#14: events/task_fieldpath.pb.go:85:20: events.TaskIO.Field calls fmt.Sprint, which eventually calls http2.writeData.String
Your code is affected by 1 vulnerability from 1 module.
This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 3
vulnerabilities in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call
these vulnerabilities.
Use '-show verbose' for more details.
After this:
govulncheck ./...
Scanning your code and 251 packages across 13 dependent modules for known vulnerabilities...
=== Symbol Results ===
No vulnerabilities found.
Your code is affected by 0 vulnerabilities.
This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 3
vulnerabilities in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call
these vulnerabilities.
Use '-show verbose' for more details.
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
Allow the api to stay at the same v1 go package name and keep using a
1.x version number. This indicates the API is still at 1.x and allows
sharing proto types with containerd 1.6 and 1.7 releases.
Signed-off-by: Derek McGowan <derek@mcg.dev>
This tag contains a fix for a deadlock observed when there are multiple
simultaneous requests from the same client connection.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Canter <dcanter@microsoft.com>
This fixes the issue with the usage of the deprecated attribute.Any
function that original caused build issues.
Signed-off-by: Brian Goff <cpuguy83@gmail.com>
- ensure that the root go.mod and the module specific go.mod have the
same `require` and `replace` directives for different dependencies.
Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>
In containerd 1.5.x, we introduced support for go modules by adding a
go.mod file in the root directory. This go.mod lists all the things
needed across the whole code base (with the exception of
integration/client which has its own go.mod). So when projects that
need to make calls to containerd API will pull in some code from
containerd/containerd, the `go mod` commands will add all the things
listed in the root go.mod to the projects go.mod file. This causes
some problems as the list of things needed to make a simple API call
is enormous. in effect, making a API call will pull everything that a
typical server needs as well as the root go.mod is all encompassing.
In general if we had smaller things folks could use, that will make it
easier by reducing the number of things that will end up in a consumers
go.mod file.
Now coming to a specific problem, the root containerd go.mod has various
k8s.io/* modules listed. Also kubernetes depends on containerd indirectly
via both moby/moby (working with docker maintainers seperately) and via
google/cadvisor. So when the kubernetes maintainers try to use latest
1.5.x containerd, they will see the kubernetes go.mod ending up depending
on the older version of kubernetes!
So if we can expose just the minimum things needed to make a client API
call then projects like cadvisor can adopt that instead of pulling in
the entire go.mod from containerd. Looking at the existing code in
cadvisor the minimum things needed would be the api/ directory from
containerd. Please see proof of concept here:
github.com/google/cadvisor/pull/2908
To enable that, in this PR, we add a go.mod file in api/ directory. we
split the Protobuild.yaml into two, one for just the things in api/
directory and the rest in the root directory. We adjust various targets
to build things correctly using `protobuild` and also ensure that we
end up with the same generated code as before as well. To ensure we
better take care of the various go.mod/go.sum files, we update the
existing `make vendor` and also add a new `make verify-vendor` that one
can run locally as well in the CI.
Ideally, we would have a `containerd/client` either as a standalone repo
or within `containerd/containerd` as a separate go module. but we will
start here to experiment with a standalone api go module first.
Also there are various follow ups we can do, for example @thaJeztah has
identified two tasks we could do after this PR lands:
github.com/containerd/containerd/pull/5716#discussion_r668821396
Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>
