This commit did not actually work; in between when it was first
written and tested, and when it merged, the code in
pkg/proxy/endpoints.go was changed to only add UDP endpoints to the
"stale endpoints"/"stale services" lists, and so checking for "either
UDP or SCTP" rather than just UDP when processing those lists had no
effect.
This reverts most of commit aa8521df66
(but leaves the changes related to
ipvs.IsRsGracefulTerminationNeeded() since that actually did have the
effect it meant to have).
In addition to actually updating their data from the provided list of
changes, EndpointsMap.Update() and ServicePortMap.Update() return a
struct with some information about things that changed because of that
update (eg services with stale conntrack entries).
For some reason, they were also returning information about
HealthCheckNodePorts, but they were returning *static* information
based on the current (post-Update) state of the map, not information
about what had *changed* in the update. Since this doesn't match how
the other data in the struct is used (and since there's no reason to
have the data only be returned when you call Update() anyway) , split
it out.
The unit tests were broken with MinimizeIPTablesRestore enabled
because syncProxyRules() assumed that needFullSync would be set on the
first (post-setInitialized()) run, but the unit tests didn't ensure
that.
(In fact, there was a race condition in the real Proxier case as well;
theoretically syncProxyRules() could be run by the
BoundedFrequencyRunner after OnServiceSynced() called setInitialized()
but before it called forceSyncProxyRules(), thus causing the first
real sync to try to do a partial sync and fail. This is now fixed as
well.)
This rule was mistakenly added to kubelet even though it only applies
to kube-proxy's traffic. We do not want to remove it from kubelet yet
because other components may be depending on it for security, but we
should make kube-proxy output its own rule rather than depending on
kubelet.
We had a test that creating a Service with an SCTP port would create
an iptables rule with "-p sctp" in it, which let us test that
kube-proxy was doing vaguely the right thing with SCTP even if the e2e
environment didn't have SCTP support. But this would really make much
more sense as a unit test.
iptables-restore requires that if you change any rule in a chain, you
have to rewrite the entire chain. But if you avoid mentioning a chain
at all, it will leave it untouched. Take advantage of this by not
rewriting the SVC, SVL, EXT, FW, and SEP chains for services that have
not changed since the last sync, which should drastically cut down on
the size of each iptables-restore in large clusters.
Rather than marking packets to be dropped in the "nat" table and then
dropping them from the "filter" table later, just use rules in
"filter" to drop the packets we don't like directly.
Re-sync the rules from TestOverallIPTablesRulesWithMultipleServices to
make sure we're testing all the right kinds of rules. Remove a
duplicate copy of the KUBE-MARK-MASQ and KUBE-POSTROUTING rules.
Update the "REJECT" test to use the new svc6 from
TestOverallIPTablesRulesWithMultipleServices. (Previously it had used
a modified version of TOIPTRWMS's svc3.)
svc2b was using the same ClusterIP as svc3; change it and rename the
service to svc5 to make everything clearer.
Move the test of LoadBalancerSourceRanges from svc2 to svc5, so that
svc2 tests the rules for dropping packets due to
externalTrafficPolicy, and svc5 tests the rules for dropping packets
due to LoadBalancerSourceRanges, rather than having them both mixed
together in svc2.
Add svc6 with no endpoints.
"iptables-save" takes several seconds to run on machines with lots of
iptables rules, and we only use its result to figure out which chains
are no longer referenced by any rules. While it makes things less
confusing if we delete unused chains immediately, it's not actually
_necessary_ since they never get called during packet processing. So
in large clusters, make it so we only clean up chains periodically
rather than on every sync.
Sort the ":CHAINNAME" lines in the same order as the "-A CHAINNAME"
lines (meaning, KUBE-NODEPORTS and KUBE-SERVICES come first).
(This will simplify IPTablesDump because it won't need to keep track
of the declaration order and the rule order separately.)
The various loops in the LoadBalancer rule section were mis-nested
such that if a service had multiple LoadBalancer IPs, we would write
out the firewall rules multiple times (and the allowFromNode rule for
the second and later IPs would end up being written after the "else
DROP" rule from the first IP).
The LoadBalancer rules change if the node IP is in one of the
LoadBalancerSourceRange subnets, so make sure to set nodeIP on the
fake proxier so we can test this, and add a second source range to
TestLoadBalancer containing the node IP. (This changes the result of
one flow test that previously expected that node-to-LB would be
dropped.)
Add TestInternalExternalMasquerade, which tests whether various
packets are considered internal or external for purposes of traffic
policy, and whether they get masqueraded, with and without
--masquerade-all, with and without a working LocalTrafficDetector.
(This extends and replaces the old TestMasqueradeAll.)
Add a new framework for testing out how particular packets would be
handled by a given set of iptables rules. (eg, "assert that a packet
from 10.180.0.2 to 172.30.0.41:80 gets NATted to 10.180.0.1:80 without
being masqueraded"). Add tests using this to all of the existing unit
tests.
This makes it easier to tell whether a given code change has any
effect on behavior, without having to carefully examine the diffs to
the generated iptables rules.
We originally had one HealthCheckNodePort test that used
assertIPTablesRulesEqual() and one that didn't, but later I went
through and made all the tests use assertIPTablesRulesEqual() and
didn't notice that this resulted in there now being two
nearly-identical HealthCheckNodePort tests.
