Automatic merge from submit-queue
Edge-based userspace LB in kube-proxy
@thockin @bowei - if one of you could take a look if that PR doesn't break some basic kube-proxy assumptions. The similar change for winuserproxy should be pretty trivial.
And we should also do that for iptables, but that requires splitting the iptables code to syncProxyRules (which from what I know @thockin already started working on so we should probably wait for it to be done).
This changes the userspace proxy so that it cleans up its conntrack
settings when a service is removed (as the iptables proxy already
does). This could theoretically cause problems when a UDP service
as deleted and recreated quickly (with the same IP address). As
long as packets from the same UDP source IP and port were going to
the same destination IP and port, the the conntrack would apply and
the packets would be sent to the old destination.
This is astronomically unlikely if you did not specify the IP address
to use in the service, and even then, only happens with an "established"
UDP connection. However, in cases where a service could be "switched"
between using the iptables proxy and the userspace proxy, this case
becomes much more frequent.
This commit makes the userspace proxy keep an ObjectReference to the
service being proxied. This allows the consumers of the `ServiceInfo`
struct, like `ProxySockets` to emit events about or otherwise refer to
the service.
This commit adds a new method for constructing userspace proxiers,
`NewCustomProxier`. `NewCustomProxier` functions identically to
`NewProxier`, except that it allows a custom constructor method to
be passed in to construct instances of ProxySocket.
This commit makes it possible for the `ProxySocket` interface to be
implemented by types outside of the `userspace` package. It mainly just
exposes relevant types and fields as public.
This commit adds a method to the `LoadBalancer` interface in the
userspace proxy which allows consumers of the `LoadBalancer` to check if
it thinks a given service has endpoints available.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Cover port_allocator_test with more conditions
The test cases of port_allocator_test should cover more conditions, such as `rangeAllocator.used.Bit`.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/proxy
cc @thockin
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)
We were trying to be clever and respect TCP's notion of half-open sockets, but
it causes leaks when we can't unblock io.Copy(). This fixes those leaks and
seems to follow most expectations. I think we were just be too clever.
