Do not make renumber shut down the runtime

The original intent behind the requirement was to ensure that, if
two SHM lock structs were open at the same time, we should not
make such a runtime available to the user, and should clean it up
instead.

It turns out that we don't even need to open a second SHM lock
struct - if we get an error mapping the first one due to a lock
count mismatch, we can just delete it, and it cleans itself up
when it errors. So there's no reason not to return a valid
runtime.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/cmd/podman/system_renumber.go b/cmd/podman/system_renumber.go
index 7f9436d5d..c8ce628b1 100644
--- a/cmd/podman/system_renumber.go
+++ b/cmd/podman/system_renumber.go
@@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ var (
 	renumberDescription = `
         podman system renumber
 
-        Migrate lock numbers to handle a change in maximum number of locks
+        Migrate lock numbers to handle a change in maximum number of locks.
+        Mandatory after the number of locks in libpod.conf is changed.
 `
 
 	_renumberCommand = &cobra.Command{
@@ -34,11 +35,15 @@ func init() {
 
 func renumberCmd(c *cliconfig.SystemRenumberValues) error {
 	// We need to pass one extra option to NewRuntime.
-	// This will inform the OCI runtime to start
-	_, err := libpodruntime.GetRuntimeRenumber(&c.PodmanCommand)
+	// This will inform the OCI runtime to start a renumber.
+	// That's controlled by the last argument to GetRuntime.
+	r, err := libpodruntime.GetRuntimeRenumber(&c.PodmanCommand)
 	if err != nil {
 		return errors.Wrapf(err, "error renumbering locks")
 	}
+	if err := r.Shutdown(false); err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
 
 	return nil
 }