Hi @littlejawa. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a cri-o member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

@saschagrunert can you have a look?

/ok-to-test

@littlejawa, the code itself seems reasonable, but I really would like to have as much info as possible in the commit message describing why we need this change.

You've done an amazing investigative work to figure out which commit, on containerd side, requires us to do such a change; and we'd be better having that as part of the commit message.

WDYT?

@littlejawa, the code itself seems reasonable, but I really would like to have as much info as possible in the commit message describing why we need this change.
[...]
WDYT?

Sure, I will add that :-)

updated the commit message. No code change

Thank you for the PR! The vendor CI check seems to fail, please run go mod tidy && go mod vendor to fix that up :)

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: littlejawa, saschagrunert

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

/release-note-none

@littlejawa, could you add the following comment to the commit that's actually doing that?

Had to modify the way we call the Command() function from containerd:
- use of the CommandConfig structure as parameter
- use the actual binary name
  (no more converting to containerd binary naming pattern)

This later change was needed as in Containerd 1.6, the validation of the given
binary path is not done in Command() anymore - the path is used as is, allowing
custom runtime paths.
(see https://github.com/containerd/containerd/commit/6870f3b1)

could you add the following comment to the commit that's actually doing that?

@fidencio - I did (I think?). The commit with this comment is updating containerd AND modifying runtim_vm.go to make it compatible with the new API. That what is described here.

The other commit is cleanup, that remove the function that is no longer called (because of the change in the first commit).

Am I missing something? Or should I rephrase it somehow?

could you add the following comment to the commit that's actually doing that?

@fidencio - I did (I think?). The commit with this comment is updating containerd AND modifying runtim_vm.go to make it compatible with the new API. That what is described here.

The other commit is cleanup, that remove the function that is no longer called (because of the change in the first commit).

Am I missing something? Or should I rephrase it somehow?

Oh, no, we're fine. I missed one bit here on my side. :-)

LGTM!

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

/test integration_crun

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@littlejawa: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

/override ci/openshift-jenkins/integration_crun

@saschagrunert: Overrode contexts on behalf of saschagrunert: ci/openshift-jenkins/integration_crun