Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

kubeadm: reimplement IPVS check #75036

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 25, 2019
Merged

kubeadm: reimplement IPVS check #75036

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 25, 2019

Conversation

bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor

@bart0sh bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019 •
edited by liggitt
Loading

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Used existing IPVS Proxier API CanUseIPVSProxier instead
of custom implementation.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes kubernetes/kubeadm#975

Special notes for your reviewer:

This is yet another attempt to correctly fix kubernetes/kubeadm#975 and get rid of huge confusing warning message that scares users.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/kubeadm sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Mar 6, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from detiber and krousey March 6, 2019 12:21
@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from e1e43e7 to a760d17 Compare March 6, 2019 12:44
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/cc @kad @neolit123

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from kad and neolit123 March 6, 2019 13:02
@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from a760d17 to f3e985e Compare March 6, 2019 13:49
neolit123
neolit123 approved these changes Mar 6, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@neolit123 neolit123 left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bart0sh
thanks for the cleanup. the change LGTM.
please mind that code freeze is tomorrow..

"verify" needs to pass (there is an import-boss issue).

/approve
/priority important-longterm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Mar 6, 2019
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-verify

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

@neolit123 Thank you for the review.

Do you have any idea why import-boss is failing/how to reproduce this?

pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance failure seems to be not related to this PR. Some testing infra setup issue I guess.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

@bart0sh
this ticket has some info what import boss is and how to test locally:
#68201 (comment)

on a quick look it seems not happy with the new dependency from pkg.
you might have to add it here:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/cmd/kubeadm/.import-restrictions#L51

@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from f3e985e to 0826e71 Compare March 6, 2019 21:22
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-integration

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-verify

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance

@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from 0826e71 to ea836b5 Compare March 7, 2019 10:10
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 7, 2019

@neolit123 thank you for the suggestion! That was exactly it - import-boss was not happy about extra dependencies to the bunch of network-related packages.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

@bart0sh
this PR came rather late and today is code freeze (in roughly 12 hours), so you need to convince the IPVS maintainers to approve.

@bart0sh bart0sh mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2019
Closed
cmluciano
cmluciano suggested changes Mar 12, 2019
View reviewed changes
cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks_darwin.go Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks_windows.go Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from ea836b5 to b04ecbe Compare March 12, 2019 20:03
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 13, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 14, 2019

@krousey, @detiber Kindly ping for review/approval.

detiber
detiber reviewed Mar 14, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@detiber detiber left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor nit, otherwise lgtm

cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks_linux.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bart0sh
kubeadm: reimplement IPVS check
2914171 
Used existing IPVS Proxier API CanUseIPVSProxier instead
of custom implementation.

Fixes kubernetes/kubeadm#975
@bart0sh bart0sh force-pushed the PR0065-kubeadm-replace-RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable-check branch from b04ecbe to 2914171 Compare March 14, 2019 14:52
@detiber
Copy link
Member

detiber commented Mar 14, 2019

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 14, 2019
@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 15, 2019

Assigning to approvers for final approval

/assign @thokin @m1093782566 @timothysc

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@bart0sh: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: thokin.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can be assigned and that issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time.
For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to this:

Assigning to approvers for final approval

/assign @thokin @m1093782566 @timothysc

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@bart0sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bart0sh commented Mar 22, 2019

@m1093782566 @timothysc Kindly ping for approval.

neolit123
neolit123 reviewed Mar 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@neolit123 neolit123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/approve
SGTM on the kubeadm side.

timothysc
timothysc reviewed Mar 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@timothysc timothysc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks for the patch, but I have a comment that I'd like an answer to before lgtm
/approve
/hold

cmd/kubeadm/app/preflight/checks_linux.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 22, 2019
@thockin
Copy link
Member

thockin commented Mar 25, 2019

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bart0sh, neolit123, thockin, timothysc

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 25, 2019
@rosti
Copy link
Contributor

rosti commented Mar 25, 2019

I think, that this is ready for merge now. Thanks @bart0sh !
/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 25, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit f3efd1d into kubernetes:master Mar 25, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@bart0sh: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance 2914171 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce 2914171 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. labels Apr 17, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cmluciano cmluciano cmluciano requested changes

@detiber detiber detiber left review comments

@neolit123 neolit123 neolit123 approved these changes

@timothysc timothysc timothysc left review comments

@krousey krousey Awaiting requested review from krousey

@kad kad Awaiting requested review from kad

Assignees

@timothysc timothysc

@detiber detiber

@m1093782566 m1093782566

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubeadm cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RequiredIPVSKernelModulesAvailable warning seems confusing
9 participants
@bart0sh @neolit123 @detiber @k8s-ci-robot @thockin @rosti @timothysc @cmluciano @m1093782566