Automatic merge from submit-queue
move pkg/fields to apimachinery
Purely mechanical move of `pkg/fields` to apimachinery.
Discussed with @lavalamp on slack. Moving this an `labels` to apimachinery.
@liggitt any concerns? I think the idea of field selection should become generic and this ends up shared between client and server, so this is a more logical location.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
make client-go more authoritative
Builds on https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/40103
This moves a few more support package to client-go for origination.
1. restclient/watch - nodep
1. util/flowcontrol - used interface
1. util/integer, util/clock - used in controllers and in support of util/flowcontrol
Automatic merge from submit-queue
controller: decouple cleanup policy from deployment strategies
Deployments get cleaned up only when they are paused, they get scaled up/down,
or when the strategy that drives rollouts completes. This means that stuck
deployments that fall into none of the above categories will not get cleaned
up. Since cleanup is already safe by itself (we only delete old replica sets
that are synced by the replica set controller and have no replicas) we can
execute it for every deployment when there is no intention to rollback.
Fixes https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/40068
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix resttest Update action when AllowUnconditionalUpdate is false
Currently our storage Update test assumes that AllowUncoditionalUpdate returns true, and in testUpdateRejectsMismatchedNamespace updates the same object it's passing to create. This results in errors when trying to update that object, due to resourceVersion not being set to a proper value. This patch modifes this so that the update is executed on a stored object, which will have correct values set.
@deads2k ptal
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc fyi
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fixed merging of host's and dns' search lines
Fixed forming of pod's Search line in resolv.conf:
- exclude duplicates while merging of host's and dns' search lines to form pod's one
- truncate pod's search line if it exceeds resolver limits: is > 255 chars and containes > 6 searches
- monitoring the resolv.conf file which is used by kubelet (set thru --resolv-conf="") and logging and eventing if search line in it consists of more than 3 entries (or 6 if Cluster Domain is set) or its lenght is > 255 chars
- logging and eventing when a pod's search line is > 255 chars or containes > 6 searches during forming
Fixes#29270
**Release note**:
```release-note
Fixed forming resolver search line for pods: exclude duplicates, obey libc limitations, logging and eventing appropriately.
```
Deployments get cleaned up only when they are paused, they get scaled up/down,
or when the strategy that drives rollouts completes. This means that stuck
deployments that fall into none of the above categories will not get cleaned
up. Since cleanup is already safe by itself (we only delete old replica sets
that are synced by the replica set controller and have no replicas) we can
execute it for every deployment when there is no intention to rollback.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add authorization mode to kubeadm
This PR adds an option in `kubeadm` to allow a user to specify an [authorization plugin](https://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/authorization/). It defaults to RBAC.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/cloudprovider
cc @runseb @justinsb @kerneltime @mikedanese @svanharmelen @anguslees @brendandburns @abrarshivani @imkin @luomiao @colemickens @ngtuna @dagnello @abithap
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36467, 36528, 39568, 40094, 39042)
do not filter kubectl get pods if -o json or yaml
Fixes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38327
This patch sets the value of --show-all to true if the output format
specified is 'json' or 'yaml'.
**Release note**:
```release-note
release-note-none
```
@smarterclayton
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/kubelet
cc @euank @vishh @dchen1107 @feiskyer @yujuhong @yifan-gu @derekwaynecarr @saad-ali
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Use versioned Taint/Toleration/AvoidPods objects when marshalling
fixes#39847
`kubectl taint`, the kubelet's `--register-with-taints` option, and several Taint/Toleration/AllowPod annotation helpers were marshaling/unmarshaling using internal structs
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39625, 39842)
AWS: Remove duplicate calls to DescribeInstance during volume operations
This change removes all duplicate calls to describeInstance
from aws volume code path.
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This PR removes the duplicate calls present in disk check code paths in AWS. I can confirm that `getAWSInstance` actually returns all instance information already and hence there is no need of making separate `describeInstance` call.
Related to - https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/39526
cc @justinsb @jsafrane
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39625, 39842)
Add RBAC v1beta1
Add `rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1beta1`. This scrubs `v1alpha1` to remove cruft, then add `v1beta1`. We'll update other bits of infrastructure to code to `v1beta1` as a separate step.
```release-note
The `attributeRestrictions` field has been removed from the PolicyRule type in the rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1alpha1 API. The field was not used by the RBAC authorizer.
```
@kubernetes/sig-auth-misc @liggitt @erictune
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Enable lazy initialization of ext3/ext4 filesystems
**What this PR does / why we need it**: It enables lazy inode table and journal initialization in ext3 and ext4.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes#30752, fixes#30240
**Release note**:
```release-note
Enable lazy inode table and journal initialization for ext3 and ext4
```
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
This PR removes the extended options to mkfs.ext3/mkfs.ext4, so that the defaults (enabled) for lazy initialization are used.
These extended options come from a script that was historically located at */usr/share/google/safe_format_and_mount* and later ported to GO so this dependency to the script could be removed. After some search, I found the original script here: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages/blob/legacy/google-startup-scripts/usr/share/google/safe_format_and_mount
Checking the history of this script, I found the commit [Disable lazy init of inode table and journal.](4d7346f7f5). This one introduces the extended flags with this description:
```
Now that discard with guaranteed zeroing is supported by PD,
initializing them is really fast and prevents perf from being affected
when the filesystem is first mounted.
```
The problem is, that this is not true for all cloud providers and all disk types, e.g. Azure and AWS. I only tested with magnetic disks on Azure and AWS, so maybe it's different for SSDs on these cloud providers. The result is that this performance optimization dramatically increases the time needed to format a disk in such cases.
When mkfs.ext4 is told to not lazily initialize the inode tables and the check for guaranteed zeroing on discard fails, it falls back to a very naive implementation that simply loops and writes zeroed buffers to the disk. Performance on this highly depends on free memory and also uses up all this free memory for write caching, reducing performance of everything else in the system.
As of https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/30752, there is also something inside kubelet that somehow degrades performance of all this. It's however not exactly known what it is but I'd assume it has something to do with cgroups throttling IO or memory.
I checked the kernel code for lazy inode table initialization. The nice thing is, that the kernel also does the guaranteed zeroing on discard check. If it is guaranteed, the kernel uses discard for the lazy initialization, which should finish in a just few seconds. If it is not guaranteed, it falls back to using *bio*s, which does not require the use of the write cache. The result is, that free memory is not required and not touched, thus performance is maxed and the system does not suffer.
As the original reason for disabling lazy init was a performance optimization and the kernel already does this optimization by default (and in a much better way), I'd suggest to completely remove these flags and rely on the kernel to do it in the best way.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40038, 40041, 39036)
don't show deleted pull secrets - kubectl describe
This patch filters out any image pull secrets that have been deleted
when printing the describer output for a service account.
Related downstream bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403376
**Release note**:
```release-note
release-note-none
```
@fabianofranz @AdoHe
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40038, 40041, 39036)
move admission to genericapiserver
I disconnected the initialization that was type specific for later assessment.
@sttts
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39826, 40030)
azure disk: restrict length of name
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Fixes dynamic disk provisioning on Azure by properly truncating the disk name to conform to the Azure API spec.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
n/a
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
n/a
**Release note**:
```release-note
azure disk: restrict name length for Azure specifications
```
cc: @rootfs
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Made tracing of calls and container lifecycle steps in FakeDockerClient optional
Fixes#39717
Slightly refactored the FakeDockerClient code and made tracing optional (but enabled by default).
@yujuhong @Random-Liu
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/volume
cc @jsafrane @spothanis @agonzalezro @justinsb @johscheuer @simonswine @nelcy @pmorie @quofelix @sdminonne @thockin @saad-ali @rootfs
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
