Prevent Kubelet from incorrectly interpreting "not yet started" pods as "ready to terminate pods" by unifying responsibility for pod lifecycle into pod worker
As of now, we allow PDBs to be applied to pods via
selectors, so there can be unmanaged pods(pods that
don't have backing controllers) but still have PDBs associated.
Such pods are to be logged instead of immediately throwing
a sync error. This ensures disruption controller is
not frequently updating the status subresource and thus
preventing excessive and expensive writes to etcd.
A number of race conditions exist when pods are terminated early in
their lifecycle because components in the kubelet need to know "no
running containers" or "containers can't be started from now on" but
were relying on outdated state.
Only the pod worker knows whether containers are being started for
a given pod, which is required to know when a pod is "terminated"
(no running containers, none coming). Move that responsibility and
podKiller function into the pod workers, and have everything that
was killing the pod go into the UpdatePod loop. Split syncPod into
three phases - setup, terminate containers, and cleanup pod - and
have transitions between those methods be visible to other
components. After this change, to kill a pod you tell the pod worker
to UpdatePod({UpdateType: SyncPodKill, Pod: pod}).
Several places in the kubelet were incorrect about whether they
were handling terminating (should stop running, might have
containers) or terminated (no running containers) pods. The pod worker
exposes methods that allow other loops to know when to set up or tear
down resources based on the state of the pod - these methods remove
the possibility of race conditions by ensuring a single component is
responsible for knowing each pod's allowed state and other components
simply delegate to checking whether they are in the window by UID.
Removing containers now no longer blocks final pod deletion in the
API server and are handled as background cleanup. Node shutdown
no longer marks pods as failed as they can be restarted in the
next step.
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pic5TPntdJnYfIpBeZndDelM-AbS4FN9H2GTLFhoJ04/edit# for details
1. add AllocateLoadBalancerNodePorts fields in specs for validation test cases
2. update fuzzer
3. in resource quota e2e, allocate node port for loadbalancer type service and
exceed the node port quota
Signed-off-by: Hanlin Shi <shihanlin9@gmail.com>
Ensure resources are created in zone with schedulable
nodes. For example, if we have 4 zones with 3 zones
having worker nodes and 1 zone having master nodes(unscheduable
for workloads), we should not create resources like PV, PVC or
pods in that zone.
We're running ubernetes tests
`should only be allowed to provision PDs in zones
where nodes exist`
on gcp&gke. While the test is useful in exercising
the scenario of identifying extra zone and
creating a node in it, not every Kube
distribution uses the same approach to create a node,
further if even there is an extra zone, we cannot
guarantee the zone to have enough quota. There can also
be other GCP specific edge cases all of which cannot be
covered within this test. So, removing the test
as agreed upon with the storage team
The data structure would wrap an embedded filesystem andthe root
directory relative to which the embedded filesystem is constructed.
Signed-off-by: Nabarun Pal <pal.nabarun95@gmail.com>
Some tests are checking the network connectivity using gomega.Consistently,
which will fail if any of the checks fails. This could lead to flakyness in
some scenarios in which kube-proxy was supposed to apply Policies for
Kubernetes services.
We can instead wait for the network connectivity to work first using gomega.Eventually,
after which we can check the consistency.
