Code change:
} /* <del> Release : v1.12 Testname: Security Context: runAsUser (id:65534) Description: Container created with runAsUser option, passing an id (id:65534) uses that given id when running the container. This test is marked LinuxOnly since Windows does not support running as UID / GID. </del> <ins> Release : v1.15 Testname: Security Context, runAsUser=65534 Description: Container is created with runAsUser option by passing uid 65534 to run as unpriviledged user. Pod MUST be in Succeeded phase. [LinuxOnly]: This test is marked as LinuxOnly since Windows does not support running as UID / GID. </ins> */ <del> It("should run the container with uid 65534 [LinuxOnly] [NodeConformance]", func() { </del> <ins> framework.ConformanceIt("should run the container with uid 65534 [LinuxOnly] [NodeConformance]", func() { </ins> createAndWaitUserPod(65534) }) /* <del> Release : v1.12 Testname: Security Context: runAsUser (id:0) Description: Container created with runAsUser option, passing an id (id:0) uses that given id when running the container. This test is marked LinuxOnly since Windows does not support running as UID / GID. </del> <ins> Release : v1.15 Testname: Security Context, runAsUser=0 Description: Container is created with runAsUser option by passing uid 0 to run as root priviledged user. Pod MUST be in Succeeded phase. This e2e can not be promoted to Conformance because a Conformant platform may not allow to run containers with 'uid 0' or running privileged operations. [LinuxOnly]: This test is marked as LinuxOnly since Windows does not support running as UID / GID. </ins> */ It("should run the container with uid 0 [LinuxOnly] [NodeConformance]", func() { createAndWaitUserPod(0)

Related discussion:
text: Which would you suggest is the best orientation to overcome the privilege mode setting and allow its promotion? Michelle Au If my understanding is correct, on some platforms, writing to /tmp requires privileged. I don't see a way to to remove that requirement.
If my understanding is correct, on some platforms, writing to /tmp requires privileged. I don't see a way to to remove that requirement. Yeah writing to host doesn't seem like a thing we can expect of conformance tests. I wonder if it makes sense to tag this test with something to denote the requirement, ie: I see some tests in test/e2e_node use
The hostpath tests in already have a comment explaining this. Maybe the comment should be updated to be more clear that that is the reason why we can't add it to conformance.
That's /tmp on the host or in the container filesystem?
/tmp on the host
ping what else remains to be done before we close this out? I am guessing that we want to close , is there anything beyond that?
Once tests under (issue- ) and are promoted we are good to close this issue. Short update for reference- None of [NodeConformance] tests from "test/e2e_node" seems eligible for [Conformance] promotion at this moment due to node level dependencies. Remaining [NodeConformance] tests from "test/e2e" has following status - Waiting for to be closed and then below tests would be promoted to Conformance Needs to be Promoted Can not be promoted to Conformance as //Slow by design Can not be promoted due to Node level dependency
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen
/assign