Add storage capabilities for rancher.io/local-path by fjvbn2003 · Pull Request #4319 · kubevirt/containerized-data-importer

fjvbn2003 · 2026-10-17T14:38:15Z

What this PR does / why we need it:

Adds rancher.io/local-path (local-path-provisioner) to
CapabilitiesByProvisionerKey with {{rwo, file}}.

local-path-provisioner is the default provisioner in k3s and kind (CDI's own
cluster-up/cluster/kind/manifests/local-storage-class.yaml uses it too). Today its StorageProfiles come out
empty. On my homelab cluster (CDI v1.66.0, local-path-provisioner v0.0.32):

$ kubectl get storageprofile local-path -o jsonpath='{.status}'
{"cloneStrategy":"copy","conditions":[{...,"message":"Provisioner is not recognized","reason":"UnrecognizedProvisioner","status":"False","type":"Recognized"}],"dataImportCronSourceFormat":"pvc","provisioner":"rancher.io/local-path","storageClass":"local-path"}

and cdi-deployment keeps reporting Set metric:local-path complete:false ..., which is what
CDIStorageProfilesIncomplete alerts on. A DataVolume on this class that relies on spec.storage defaults
fails with ErrClaimNotValid: no accessMode specified in StorageProfile local-path.

Why {{rwo, file}}, from the provisioner source (same in v0.0.32 and v0.0.37):

node-path volumes reject any access mode other than RWO/RWOP:
NodePath only supports ReadWriteOnce and ReadWriteOncePod (1.22+) access modes
(provisioner.go)
every PV it creates has VolumeMode: &fs with fs := v1.PersistentVolumeFilesystem, so Block is never offered.

RWX is only possible when a shared filesystem path is configured for the provisioner, which is not the
default and cannot be seen from the StorageClass; those users can keep setting spec.claimPropertySets on the
StorageProfile. No clone strategy is advised: the provisioner has no snapshot or CSI clone support, so the
existing default (host-assisted copy, already chosen today) stays.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3005

Special notes for your reviewer:

Same shape as storagecapabilities: add OpenEBS Replicated PV Mayastor #4286 (Mayastor). Tests: a claimPropertySets check for the new provisioner and a Recognized
entry.
CDI's kind provider uses this provisioner for its default local StorageClass. After this change that
StorageProfile becomes complete. If a functional lane depends on that profile being incomplete, please
point me to it and I will adjust.
Test results (Go 1.27.2, linux/amd64, GOFLAGS=-mod=vendor, on main @ 9cd4fbd): the new specs fail without the capability entry (7 ran, 2 failed) and pass with it; go test ./pkg/controller/ gives 385 passed / 3 failed with this change and 383 passed / 3 failed without it — the same three Update PVC from POD VDDK specs fail in that environment either way; ./pkg/storagecapabilities/... passes.

AI disclosure: I used Claude (Anthropic) to help read the provisioner source and draft the change and tests.
I reviewed every line, and the StorageProfile output above is from my own cluster. The commit carries an
Assisted-by trailer.

Release note:

Add StorageProfile defaults for the local-path-provisioner (rancher.io/local-path) used by k3s and kind

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

local-path-provisioner is the default provisioner in k3s and kind, and the kind provider in cluster-up uses it for its default StorageClass. It has no entry in CapabilitiesByProvisionerKey, so its StorageProfiles get no claimPropertySets and the Recognized condition is False with UnrecognizedProvisioner. A DataVolume that uses spec.storage without accessModes on such a StorageClass then fails with "no accessMode specified in StorageProfile". local-path-provisioner only accepts ReadWriteOnce and ReadWriteOncePod for node paths and always creates Filesystem PVs, so advertise ReadWriteOnce with Filesystem. Assisted-by: Claude <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: YoungjuKim <[email protected]>

kubevirt-prow · 2026-10-17T14:38:25Z

Hi @fjvbn2003. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

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.

akalenyu

thank you!

akalenyu · 2026-10-18T11:25:03Z

 	"k8s.io/minikube-hostpath": {{rwo, file}},
+	// local-path-provisioner (default in k3s and kind); node-local directories,
+	// so only RWO filesystem volumes unless a shared filesystem is configured
+	"rancher.io/local-path": {{rwo, file}},


I think we can do some aggregation of these local path provisioners which all ultimately give out rwo,file

Thanks for the review! Done in the second commit: I added a createLocalPathCapabilities() helper and switched the node-local path provisioners to it (hostpath-provisioner CSI and legacy, k8s.io/minikube-hostpath, rancher.io/local-path). The hostpath-provisioner overlay variant stays RWX filesystem.

I left DirectPV (directpv-min-io) out, since it hands out whole local drives rather than directories, but I can fold it in as well if you'd prefer.

Unit tests: go test ./pkg/controller/ runs 388 of 388 specs, all passing.

hostpath-provisioner (CSI and legacy), minikube-hostpath and local-path-provisioner all back a volume with a directory on one node, so each of them only offers ReadWriteOnce Filesystem volumes. Use a single createLocalPathCapabilities helper for them instead of repeating the literal, as suggested in review. Assisted-by: Claude <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: YoungjuKim <[email protected]>

akalenyu · 2026-10-19T07:59:23Z

/approve
/test all

kubevirt-prow · 2026-10-19T08:00:10Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: akalenyu

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [akalenyu]

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

coveralls · 2026-10-19T08:13:20Z

coverage: 50.288% (+0.08%) from 50.213% — fjvbn2003:local-path-capabilities into kubevirt:main

fjvbn2003 · 2026-10-25T02:33:12Z

Hi @alromeros @arnongilboa, this already has an /approve from @akalenyu and /test all passed on 58b2277, so it only needs an /lgtm. Could one of you take a look when you get a chance? Thanks!

arnongilboa · 2026-10-25T08:53:41Z

+	It("Should create storage profile with RWO filesystem claim property set for local-path-provisioner", func() {
+		reconciler = createStorageProfileReconciler(CreateStorageClassWithProvisioner(storageClassName, nil, nil, localPathProvisioner))
+		_, err := reconciler.Reconcile(context.TODO(), reconcile.Request{NamespacedName: types.NamespacedName{Name: storageClassName}})
+		Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred())
+
+		sp := &cdiv1.StorageProfile{}
+		err = reconciler.client.Get(context.TODO(), types.NamespacedName{Name: storageClassName}, sp, &client.GetOptions{})
+		Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred())
+		Expect(*sp.Status.Provisioner).To(Equal(localPathProvisioner))
+		Expect(sp.Status.ClaimPropertySets).To(Equal([]cdiv1.ClaimPropertySet{
+			{AccessModes: []v1.PersistentVolumeAccessMode{v1.ReadWriteOnce}, VolumeMode: ptr.To(v1.PersistentVolumeFilesystem)},
+		}))
+	})
+


Not sure why 2 additional utests are needed for this provisioner, as it has nothing new in the logic which is already well covered.

Thanks @arnongilboa, fair point. The provisioner only reuses createLocalPathCapabilities, which the existing hostpath tests already cover, so I dropped both tests in 39e13da.

rancher.io/local-path only reuses createLocalPathCapabilities, which the existing hostpath-provisioner tests already cover, so the extra reconcile test and the recognized-provisioner table entry did not exercise any new logic. Signed-off-by: YoungjuKim <[email protected]> Assisted-by: Claude <[email protected]>

arnongilboa · 2026-10-26T06:15:47Z

/lgtm

kubevirt-prow Bot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has DCO signed all their commits. labels Oct 17, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot added the size/S label Oct 17, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot requested review from alromeros and arnongilboa October 17, 2026 14:38

akalenyu reviewed Oct 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubevirt-prow Bot added size/M and removed size/S labels Oct 18, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 19, 2026

arnongilboa reviewed Oct 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubevirt-prow Bot added size/S and removed size/M labels Oct 25, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot assigned arnongilboa Oct 26, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 26, 2026

kubevirt-prow Bot merged commit fd4146a into kubevirt:main Oct 26, 2026
21 checks passed

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Add storage capabilities for rancher.io/local-path - #4319

Add storage capabilities for rancher.io/local-path#4319
kubevirt-prow[bot] merged 3 commits into
kubevirt:mainfrom
fjvbn2003:local-path-capabilities

fjvbn2003 commented Oct 17, 2026 •

edited by akalenyu

Loading

Uh oh!

kubevirt-prow Bot commented Oct 17, 2026

Uh oh!

akalenyu left a comment

Uh oh!

akalenyu Oct 18, 2026

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 Oct 18, 2026

Uh oh!

akalenyu commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

kubevirt-prow Bot commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 commented Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

arnongilboa Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

arnongilboa commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

fjvbn2003 commented Oct 17, 2026 • edited by akalenyu Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kubevirt-prow Bot commented Oct 17, 2026

Uh oh!

akalenyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

akalenyu Oct 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 Oct 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

akalenyu commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

kubevirt-prow Bot commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Oct 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 commented Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

arnongilboa Oct 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjvbn2003 Oct 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arnongilboa commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

fjvbn2003 commented Oct 17, 2026 •

edited by akalenyu

Loading

coveralls commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading