* Support namespace access from cel expression in validatingadmissionpolicy.
* Whitelist the exposed fields in namespace object and add test
* better handling of cluster-scoped resources.
* [API REVIEW] namespaceObject in Expression doc.
* compatibility with composition.
* generated: ./hack/update-codegen.sh && ./hack/update-openapi-spec.sh
* workaround namespace of namespace is unexpectedly set.
* basic test coverage for namespaceObject.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jiahui Feng <jhf@google.com>
* [API REVIEW] ValidatingAdmissionPolicyStatucController config.
worker count.
* ValidatingAdmissionPolicyStatus controller.
* remove CEL typechecking from API server.
* fix initializer tests.
* remove type checking integration tests
from API server integration tests.
* validatingadmissionpolicy-status options.
* grant access to VAP controller.
* add defaulting unit test.
* generated: ./hack/update-codegen.sh
* add OWNERS for VAP status controller.
* type checking test case.
When someone decides that a Pod should definitely run on a specific node, they
can create the Pod with spec.nodeName already set. Some custom scheduler might
do that. Then kubelet starts to check the pod and (if DRA is enabled) will
refuse to run it, either because the claims are still waiting for the first
consumer or the pod wasn't added to reservedFor. Both are things the scheduler
normally does.
Also, if a pod got scheduled while the DRA feature was off in the
kube-scheduler, a pod can reach the same state.
The resource claim controller can handle these two cases by taking over for the
kube-scheduler when nodeName is set. Triggering an allocation is simpler than
in the scheduler because all it takes is creating the right
PodSchedulingContext with spec.selectedNode set. There's no need to list nodes
because that choice was already made, permanently. Adding the pod to
reservedFor also isn't hard.
What's currently missing is triggering de-allocation of claims to re-allocate
them for the desired node. This is not important for claims that get created
for the pod from a template and then only get used once, but it might be
worthwhile to add de-allocation in the future.
If something goes wrong during the Azure cloud detection, trying to cast
the returned value will result in the following panic and give no clue
as to what the error was.
```
panic: interface conversion: cloudprovider.Interface is nil, not *azure.Cloud
goroutine 1 [running]:
k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework/providers/azure.newProvider()
test/e2e/framework/providers/azure/azure.go:50 +0x2b5
k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework.SetupProviderConfig({0xc0007966b8, 0x5})
test/e2e/framework/provider.go:82 +0x1a6
```
The recommendation and default in the controller helper code is to set
ReservedFor to the pod which triggered delayed allocation. However, this
is neither required nor enforced. Therefore we should also test the fallback
path were kube-scheduler itself adds the pod to ReservedFor.
Combining all prepare/unprepare operations for a pod enables plugins to
optimize the execution. Plugins can continue to use the v1beta2 API for now,
but should switch. The new API is designed so that plugins which want to work
on each claim one-by-one can do so and then report errors for each claim
separately, i.e. partial success is supported.
Change name to make it compliant with prometheus guidelines.
Calculate it on demand instead of periodic to comply with prometheus standards.
Replace "endpoint" with "server" label to make it semantically consistent with storage factory
Make sure orphanded pods (pods deleted while kubelet is down) are
handled correctly.
Outline:
1. create a pod (not static pod)
2. stop kubelet
3. while kubelet is down, force delete the pod on API server
4. restart kubelet
the pod becomes an orphaned pod and is expected to be killed by HandlePodCleanups.
There is a similar test already, but here we want to check device
assignment.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
The recently added e2e device plugins test to cover node reboot
works fine if runs every time on CI environment (e.g CI) but
doesn't handle correctly partial setup when run repeatedly on
the same instance (developer setup).
To accomodate both flows, we extend the error management, checking
more error conditions in the flow.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
Fix e2e device manager tests.
Most notably, the workload pods needs to survive a kubelet
restart. Update tests to reflect that.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
The main problem probably was that
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/118862 moved creating the first
pod before setting up the callback which blocks allocating one claim for that
pod. This is racy because allocations happen in the background.
The test also was unnecessarily complex and hard to read:
- The intended effect can be achieved with three instead of four claims.
- It wasn't clear which claim has "external-claim-other" as name.
Using the claim variable avoids that.
Generating the name avoids all potential name collisions. It's not clear how
much of a problem that was because users can avoid them and the deterministic
names for generic ephemeral volumes have not led to reports from users. But
using generated names is not too hard either.
What makes it relatively easy is that the new pod.status.resourceClaimStatus
map stores the generated name for kubelet and node authorizer, i.e. the
information in the pod is sufficient to determine the name of the
ResourceClaim.
The resource claim controller becomes a bit more complex and now needs
permission to modify the pod status. The new failure scenario of "ResourceClaim
created, updating pod status fails" is handled with the help of a new special
"resource.kubernetes.io/pod-claim-name" annotation that together with the owner
reference identifies exactly for what a ResourceClaim was generated, so
updating the pod status can be retried for existing ResourceClaims.
The transition from deterministic names is handled with a special case for that
recovery code path: a ResourceClaim with no annotation and a name that follows
the Kubernetes <= 1.27 naming pattern is assumed to be generated for that pod
claim and gets added to the pod status.
There's no immediate need for it, but just in case that it may become relevant,
the name of the generated ResourceClaim may also be left unset to record that
no claim was needed. Components processing such a pod can skip whatever they
normally would do for the claim. To ensure that they do and also cover other
cases properly ("no known field is set", "must check ownership"),
resourceclaim.Name gets extended.
