Skip to content

Conversation

@alicefr
Copy link
Contributor

@alicefr alicefr commented Jan 29, 2026

The original PR is #2145.

In order to support new clevis pin, either they need to be added each time in the hardcoded list of pins or ignition can allow any name for the pin. This is required in order to enable the clevis trustee pin used for confidential clusters.

The backport to 3.5 is necessary because the rust crate for ignition only support up to 3.5 config version and cannot be used with 3.6-experimental.

@alicefr
Copy link
Contributor Author

alicefr commented Jan 29, 2026

/cc @prestist @travier

@alicefr alicefr changed the title Backport of arbitrary custom clevis pin in 3.5 Backport of arbitrary custom clevis pin in ignition spec 3.5 Jan 29, 2026
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request backports the functionality to allow arbitrary custom clevis pins to version 3.5 of the configuration. The change correctly removes the validation that restricted the pin to a hardcoded list of values, which is necessary to support new pin types like trustee. The corresponding test has been updated to reflect this change. The implementation is correct and achieves the stated goal.

In order to support new clevis pin, either they need to be added each
time in the hardcoded list of pins or ignition can allow any name for
the pin. This is required in order to enable the clevis trustee pin used
for confidential clusters.

The backport to 3.5 is necessary because the rust crate for ignition
only support up to 3.5 config version and cannot be used with
3.6-experimental.

Signed-off-by: Alice Frosi <afrosi@redhat.com>
@alicefr alicefr force-pushed the backport-clevis-3-5 branch from 116bfcc to 23ff227 Compare January 29, 2026 14:03
@prestist
Copy link
Collaborator

hmm, while this is significantly easier.. should we not be stabilizing 3.6? is there any risk in this going to a stable version of ignition config?

I expect confusion, and misunderstandings.

@alicefr
Copy link
Contributor Author

alicefr commented Jan 30, 2026

@prestist I did the backport because it isn't really an api change but we are relaxing the check and list of the pin. How long would it take to stabilize 3.6 in your opinion? And eventually what need to be stabilize?

@prestist
Copy link
Collaborator

prestist commented Jan 30, 2026

I can definitely see why you would want to backport that support... and this does feeel like we can do that for this however; in doing this It means 3.5 behaves differently on different versions of ignition. Which will confuse the user and make one ignition config work on a system as expected but not as expected on another. Even though they both support 3.5.

The main thing is any direct change to the contract, rather implicit or explicit once stabilized can break trust. Warnings are about as far as we go, even if a bug existed in the past we would add a warning on stable versions fixing in exp ones. I am welcome to push back here but would like more people to push back before going down the route of updating functional change on a stabilized version.

Stabilization is a more time involved process for sure, it would likely take a sprint or so. You can see the checklist here => #1925

@travier

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants