Fix functional test that checks if tenant PVC cannot access unlabeled infra PVCs

[awels]

What this PR does / why we need it:
This test creates a PVC in the infra cluster manually and then tries to access it from a tenant cluster by crafting a special PVC that references the infra PVC.

Since the labels will not match the PVC should not be accessible. After wards one will not be able to delete the tenant PV because there is no matching PVC in the infra cluster.

This removes the check that the tenant PV can be deleted.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

NONE

[akalenyu]

Since the labels will not match the PVC should not be accessible

This was the key part for me.
That CVE test is negative, so the pod that mounts this volume is going to fail (and that is asserted).

What still feels off to me is that I don't understand why this started failing just now.
Unless, some of the commits went in without CI? CSI Sidecar bumps that contain changes in behavior?
Maybe this commit? 906c86e

Sorry for being a pain I am hesitant to give out an lgtm here without having rock solid understanding of what it is that made it start failing now when it should have in fact failed when the test was introduced

[awels]

Yeah I honestly don't know either, that commit did add the code so it is likely that is culprit. But it passed CI without issues.

[akalenyu]

Yeah I honestly don't know either, that commit did add the code so it is likely that is culprit. But it passed CI without issues.

How come the PV is even around if we're using PersistentVolumeReclaimDelete?

csi-driver/e2e/create-pvc_test.go

Line 572 in 35836e0

PersistentVolumeReclaimPolicy: k8sv1.PersistentVolumeReclaimDelete,

https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes/#delete

[akalenyu]

Can https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-storage/2644-honor-pv-reclaim-policy be related somehow? It went beta in 1.31.

[awels]

I don't think so, the problem is that when we delete the PV in the tenant cluster, it can't find (correctly) the matching PV in the infra cluster, and returns an error. This causes the PV to not get deleted.

[awels]

/approve

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: awels

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [awels]

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