azurefile: kata/kata-cc: add kata node conditional

[arc9693]

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
New Volumes: AzureFile CSI volumes created after enabling ConfPods are functional and shared across new Confidential and Non confidential Pods as expected.
Existing Volumes: Volumes created earlier for runc or Kata containers cannot be leveraged by Confidential Pods.

• This PR adds support for reusing volumes created with runc or kata runtime for kata-cc runtime pods
• This PR removes storage class parameter check enableKataCCMount and instead relies on node labels to get the info
• This PR adds support for an additional runtime - kata - which is similar to kata-cc as it creates vm isolated pods.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #
Related ADO bugs: https://microsoft.visualstudio.com/OS/_workitems/edit/55326325/, https://microsoft.visualstudio.com/OS/_workitems/edit/56384073/

Requirements:

• uses conventional commit messages
• includes documentation
• adds unit tests
• [] tested upgrade from previous version

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

- adds support for migration of volumes from non-conf to conf pods
- adds support for kata-sandboxing using cifs mounts inside VMs

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: arc9693
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign andyzhangx for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @arc9693. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

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.

[arc9693]

To do for ready to be reviewed:

• Remove storage class param for enableKataCCMount everywhere
• Update examples and yaml configs, and built driver
• Update and Check tests

[sprt]

Also to support vanilla Kata

[andyzhangx]

/ok-to-test

[k8s-ci-robot]

@arc9693: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-azurefile-csi-driver-e2e-capz	bebaae9	link	true	/test pull-azurefile-csi-driver-e2e-capz

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[andyzhangx]

if nodeID == "" {
// driver controller
return false
}

[andyzhangx]

thus in driver controller pod, it does not need to get node labels since nodeID is empty

[andyzhangx]

could you write unit test like this?

azurefile-csi-driver/pkg/azurefile/utils_test.go

Lines 154 to 198 in 7756c11

	func TestIsSupportedShareNamePrefix(t *testing.T) {
	tests := []struct {
	prefix string
	expectedResult bool
	}{
	{
	prefix: "",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "ext3",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "ext-2",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "-xfs",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "Absdf",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "tooooooooooooooooooooooooolong",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "+invalid",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: " invalidspace",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	}
	for _, test := range tests {
	result := isSupportedShareNamePrefix(test.prefix)
	if result != test.expectedResult {
	t.Errorf("isSupportedShareNamePrefix(%s) returned with %v, not equal to %v", test.prefix, result, test.expectedResult)
	}
	}

[andyzhangx]

could you write unit test like this?

azurefile-csi-driver/pkg/azurefile/utils_test.go

Lines 154 to 198 in 7756c11

	func TestIsSupportedShareNamePrefix(t *testing.T) {
	tests := []struct {
	prefix string
	expectedResult bool
	}{
	{
	prefix: "",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "ext3",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "ext-2",
	expectedResult: true,
	},
	{
	prefix: "-xfs",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "Absdf",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "tooooooooooooooooooooooooolong",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: "+invalid",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	{
	prefix: " invalidspace",
	expectedResult: false,
	},
	}
	for _, test := range tests {
	result := isSupportedShareNamePrefix(test.prefix)
	if result != test.expectedResult {
	t.Errorf("isSupportedShareNamePrefix(%s) returned with %v, not equal to %v", test.prefix, result, test.expectedResult)
	}
	}