Change:
}, } <del> ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Creating a pod (%v/%v)", f.Namespace.Name, podName)) </del> <ins> ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Creating a pod (%s/%s)", f.Namespace.Name, podName)) </ins> e2epod.NewPodClient(f).Create(ctx, pod) } f.It("should succeed with pod and pull policy of Always", func(ctx context.Context) { <ins> var selinuxOptions *v1.SELinuxOptions if selinux.GetEnabled() { selinuxOptions = &v1.SELinuxOptions{ User:  defaultSELinuxUser, Role:  defaultSELinuxRole, Type:  defaultSELinuxType, Level: defaultSELinuxLevel, } ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Using SELinux on pod: %v", selinuxOptions)) } </ins> createPod(ctx, <ins> podName, "", </ins> []v1.Volume{{Name: volumeName, VolumeSource: v1.VolumeSource{Image: &v1.ImageVolumeSource{Reference: validImageRef, PullPolicy: v1.PullAlways}}}}, []v1.VolumeMount{{Name: volumeName, MountPath: volumePathPrefix}}, <ins> selinuxOptions, </ins> ) <del> ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Waiting for the pod (%v/%v) to be running", f.Namespace.Name, podName)) </del> <ins> ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Waiting for the pod (%s/%s) to be running", f.Namespace.Name, podName)) </ins> err := e2epod.WaitForPodNameRunningInNamespace(ctx, f.ClientSet, podName, f.Namespace.Name) <del> framework.ExpectNoError(err, "Failed to await for the pod to be running: (%v/%v)", f.Namespace.Name, podName) </del> <ins> framework.ExpectNoError(err, "Failed to await for the pod to be running: (%s/%s)", f.Namespace.Name, podName) </ins> ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Verifying the volume mount contents for path: %s", volumePathPrefix))

Discussion:
Related to and SIG storage meeting notes: From me: It is related to image volume plugin and selinux. Is it a known limitation of all the volume plugins when using selinux? I have a different opinion. If two pods don't share the same mountpoint (hostpath), they can run the same node when the selinux is enabled. the current implementation of cri-o is sharing the same hostpath when two pods use the same image volume. More details about my idea: From Sharing each volume between namespaces is kind of natural. Sharing PVs not possible but sharing image quite common. From Although for most volume plugins it is true that, they can't be mounted with 2 different selinux context on same node, we want to understand why is this not possible for Imagevolume source. For a traditional storage persistent storage plugins - this limitation is underlying limitation of storage backend/Linux kernel etc. For ImageVolume source, it seems like a simple solution which unpacks image to two different hostpath would work and not run into this limitation. can you specify, why this limitation exists for ImageVolume plugins? From we choose to keep it simple and follow the lead of other volume types. supporting multiple selinux types would mean making more complicated the way we mount the image into the container AFAIR. But agreed we can chat about this elsewhere, in the meantime for the purposes of this PR: this is consistent with behavior of other volume plugins and is expected behavior. Let's discuss the SELinux behavior for image volumes in this issue. cc /sig node /sig storage
In my opinion, from an end-user perspective, the image volume may act like a read-only with a pre-populated content via image. Two pods from different namespaces can share the same image and run on the same node.
Pasted from According to , the containerd doesn't have the same limitation.
Given that OCI/Image Volume Source support is in alpha, I'd prefer that we consider discussing this as part of the original feature. We can discuss this here but I don't know if we need a separate KEP for this yet.

Yes, so far, in our conversations at the containerd community meetings we decided to start this feature out using a single pod scope for the pod scoped image volume host path because in containerd each runtime handler may have a different snapshotter (possibly on a different fs), or at least that's the plan. Additionally, the pods may have different os versions on windows indicating a different platform can be selected on the same node and this sort of versioning may extend beyond to other os providers. We could ask Kirtana to confirm the versioning issue and status of platform version selection over the platform index manifest, if the snapshotter reason isn't enough to at least start with per pod scope. If this is insufficient support we can certainly discuss. Cheers, Mike
No need a separate KEP. We can update the original KEP once this issue is resolved.
I'm working on a technical solution (just a PoC) in , not sure how feasible that is as time of writing, though.
yeah I agree I don't think we need a different feature for this, especially because it's mostly an implementation detail in the runtime. would you open this as an issue in kubernetes/kubernetes instead of the enhancements repo, or even better in the cri-o repo?
/transfer kubernetes
I moved this issue into kubernetes repo.
/triage accepted /priority important-soon
thanks!
Copid from kep: As merged, do we need to change the KEPs to reflect the new behavior?
no, nothing needs to be changed from a Kubernetes any more :+1:
/remove-sig storage