Update persistent TPM & UEFI page to clarify storageclass requirements

[ianb-mp]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Update Persistent TPM and UEFI state to reflect the changes made in kubevirt/kubevirt#11773

Also, small spelling fix: prerequesites -> prerequisites

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:

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.

• Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
• PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
• Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
• Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
• Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
• Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
• Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
• Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note:

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign iholder101, mhenriks for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes 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:

• docs/compute/OWNERS
• docs/storage/OWNERS

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

[kubevirt-bot]

Hi @ianb-mp. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubevirt 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.

[ianb-mp]

I was unsure if the following statement is still true - can anyone confirm?

Backend storage is currently incompatible with VM snapshot. It is planned to add snapshot support in the future.

[akalenyu]

I was unsure if the following statement is still true - can anyone confirm?

Backend storage is currently incompatible with VM snapshot. It is planned to add snapshot support in the future.

I think so - https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/effcb5b8e6fc951ec5c85ba47ad1daedc0173d79/pkg/virt-api/webhooks/validating-webhook/admitters/vmsnapshot-admitter.go#L166-L174
/cc @jean-edouard

[kubevirt-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[ianb-mp]

@akalenyu @victortoso @jean-edouard could someone please review?

[jean-edouard]

Not anymore. In 1.4, RWO FS backend-storage is migratable. vmStateStorageClass can still be used to manually specify a storage class though, instead of relying on defaults.

[jean-edouard]

Same as above

[jean-edouard]

Thank you @ianb-mp for this update. It looks good but needs to be reworked a bit to reflect most recent changes.