As described in 8c76845b03 ("test/e2e/network: fix a bug in the hostport e2e
test") if we have two pods with the same hostPort, hostIP, but different
protocols, a CNI may be buggy and decide to forward all traffic only to one of
these pods. Add a check that we receiving requests from different pods.
Co-authored-by: Antonio Ojea <antonio.ojea.garcia@gmail.com>
Making the LoggingConfiguration part of the versioned component-base/config API
had the theoretic advantage that components could have offered different
configuration APIs with experimental features limited to alpha versions (for
example, sanitization offered only in a v1alpha1.KubeletConfiguration). Some
components could have decided to only use stable logging options.
In practice, this wasn't done. Furthermore, we don't want different components
to make different choices regarding which logging features they offer to
users. It should always be the same everywhere, for the sake of consistency.
This can be achieved with a saner Go API by dropping the distinction between
internal and external LoggingConfiguration types. Different stability levels of
indidividual fields have to be covered by documentation (done) and potentially
feature gates (not currently done).
Advantages:
- everything related to logging is under component-base/logs;
previously this was scattered across different packages and
different files under "logs" (why some code was in logs/config.go
vs. logs/options.go vs. logs/logs.go always confused me again
and again when coming back to the code):
- long-term config and command line API are clearly separated
into the "api" package underneath that
- logs/logs.go itself only deals with legacy global flags and
logging configuration
- removal of separate Go APIs like logs.BindLoggingFlags and
logs.Options
- LogRegistry becomes an implementation detail, with less code
and less exported functionality (only registration needs to
be exported, querying is internal)
The hostport e2e test (sonobuoy run --e2e-focus 'validates that there is no
conflict between pods with same hostPort but different hostIP and protocol')
checks, in particular, that two pods with the same hostPort, the same hostIP,
but different L4 protocols can coexist on one node.
In order to do this, the test creates two pods with the same hostIP:hostPort,
one TCP-based, another UDP-based. However, both pods listen on both protocols:
netexec --http-port=8080 --udp-port=8080
This can happen that a CNI which doesn't distinguish between TCP and UDP
hostPorts forwards all traffic, TCP or UDP, to the same pod. As this pod
listens on both protocols it will reply to both requests, and the test
will think that everything works properly while the second pod is indeed
disconnected. Fix this by executing different commands in different pods:
TCP: netexec --http-port=8080 --udp-port=-1
UDP: netexec --http-port=8008 --udp-port=8080
The TCP pod now doesn't listen on UDP, and the UDP pod doesn't listen on TCP on
the target hostPort. The UDP pod still needs to listen on TCP on another port
so that a pod readiness check can be made.
Use a watch to detect invalid pod status updates in graceful node
shutdown node e2e test. By using a watch, all pod updates will be
captured while the previous logic required polling the api-server which
could miss some intermediate updates.
Signed-off-by: David Porter <david@porter.me>
This is useful in environments where the Deployment image is replaced
by another image from an internal registry (via fixture). In that case,
the populator running in populate mode should use the same image as the
populator running in controller mode.
