Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add riscv64 support #15490

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

feat: add riscv64 support #15490

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ernado
Copy link
Contributor

@ernado ernado commented Mar 16, 2023

Should be marked as Tier 3.

@ernado ernado force-pushed the feat/riscv branch 2 times, most recently from 147d958 to 2f6685f Compare March 16, 2023 16:38
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
FROM --platform=linux/ppc64le riscv64/debian:sid-slim
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

New releases were migrated to gcr.io/distroless/static-debian11

Don't think we want to have use different images.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've tried it first, but there is no riscv64 image for gcr.io/distroless/static-debian11, so I've found a closest replacement.

GoogleContainerTools/distroless#1268

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously I saws lots of CVEs, so eventually we migrated to distroless base image.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is no distroless image for riscv64, and I can't add it to distroless repo myself until riscv64 snapshots for debian packages are available.

Should I try riscv64/busybox instead?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't want to use busybox due to licensing issues #15034

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like FROM scratch just works.

@ernado
Copy link
Contributor Author

ernado commented Mar 16, 2023

Looks like it would be currently hard to add riscv64 to distroless, please see GoogleContainerTools/distroless#1268.

Can we use riscv64/debian:sid-slim for now?

@ernado ernado requested a review from serathius March 16, 2023 18:30
Dockerfile-release.riscv64 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
FROM --platform=linux/ppc64le riscv64/debian:sid-slim
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously I saws lots of CVEs, so eventually we migrated to distroless base image.

@serathius
Copy link
Member

Need to agree with distroless maintainer arches to the build is quite expensive and makes it harder to maintain. Especially if we would need to use separate base image for riscv64. For now I'm against adding support riscv64 until https://www.debian.org/ports/ and distroless supports it

@ernado ernado force-pushed the feat/riscv branch 2 times, most recently from 01ef2b9 to 8dfc570 Compare March 17, 2023 13:54
Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Razumov <[email protected]>
@ernado
Copy link
Contributor Author

ernado commented Apr 21, 2023

Closing this until distroless dependency is resolved.

Will be maintaining forks and binaries under https://github.com/go-riscv.

Also, there is signed distroless image from go-riscv:
https://github.com/go-riscv/distroless

docker pull ghcr.io/go-riscv/distroless/static-unstable:latest
FROM ghcr.io/go-riscv/distroless/static-unstable:latest

@ernado ernado closed this Apr 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants