test: Fix for spurious runc error message

[ricardobranco777]

Fix issue with 030-run test when using runc as OCI runtime.

OS: podman 5.4.2 / runc 1.2.6 on latest openSUSE Tumbleweed

Verification run: https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/5029065/file/podman-bats-root-local.tap

not ok 56 [030] podman run --preserve-fds in 602ms
# tags: ci:parallel
# (from function `bail-now' in file test/system/helpers.bash, line 187,
#  from function `is' in file test/system/helpers.bash, line 1136,
#  in test file test/system/030-run.bats, line 80)
#   `is "$output" "$content" "container read input from fd 4"' failed
#
# [08:30:25.600046765] # /usr/bin/podman run --rm -i --preserve-fds=2 quay.io/libpod/testimage:20241011 sh -c cat <&4
# [08:30:26.002618716] sJ4RLO6n3iX4qiAEXG2X
# time="2025-04-29T08:30:25-04:00" level=error msg="forwarding signal 18 to container a84353502e8cc9ea1037a71acccb46c50c0aa0a1bcb2a70a559ff04244cd5e78: container has already been removed"
# #/vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
# #|     FAIL: container read input from fd 4
# #| expected: 'sJ4RLO6n3iX4qiAEXG2X'
# #|   actual: 'sJ4RLO6n3iX4qiAEXG2X'
# #|         > 'time="2025-04-29T08:30:25-04:00" level=error msg="forwarding signal 18 to container a84353502e8cc9ea1037a71acccb46c50c0aa0a1bcb2a70a559ff04244cd5e78: container has already been removed"'
# #\^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# # [teardown]

None

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ricardobranco777
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ashley-cui 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

[Luap99]

Ok that raises quite some questions for me. Is that a consistent error or a flake?
A) we should not be printing that error, if forwarding fails and the container is removed already then we should ignore that silently.
B) The test doesn't send any signals AFAIK where does 18 (SIGCONT) come from
C) How are we forwarding/catching SIGCONT? I always thought one cannot catch SIGSTOP/CONT signals.

Overall this feels like a podman bug we should not work around in tests.

[ricardobranco777]

Ok that raises quite some questions for me. Is that a consistent error or a flake?

It's not consistent. Seems like a flake to me.

A) we should not be printing that error, if forwarding fails and the container is removed already then we should ignore that silently.

Agree.

[Luap99]

Closing in favour of #26027 which should properly address the flake I believe.