Sidecar Containers

[Joseph-Irving]

Enhancement Description

• One-line enhancement description (can be used as a release note): Kubernetes introduces the built-in support for sidecar containers pattern.
• Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-node/753-sidecar-containers/README.md
• Discussion Link: Sidecar working group and KEP draft
• Primary contact (assignee): @SergeyKanzhelev
• Responsible SIGs: node
• Enhancement target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (x.y): 1.28
  • Beta release target (x.y): 1.29
  • Stable release target (x.y): 1.33
• Alpha
  • KEP (k/enhancements) update PR(s):
    • Sidecar containers KEP #3761
    • move sidecar to milestone 1.28 #3968
  • Code (k/k) update PR(s):
    • Add SidecarContainers feature kubernetes#116429
  • Docs (k/website) update PR(s):
    • Add initial (alpha) documentation about sidecar containers website#41802
• Beta
  • KEP (k/enhancements) update PR(s): KEP-753: add PRR questionnaire answers for beta #4255
  • Code (k/k) update PR(s):
    • sidecars: terminate sidecars after main containers kubernetes#120620
    • Promote SidecarContainers feature to beta kubernetes#121579
    • Add cel new validator into Kubernetes kubernetes#121307
  • Docs (k/website) update(s): Document SidecarContainers graduation to beta website#43471
• Stable
  • KEP (k/enhancements) update PR(s):
    • KEP 753: SidecarContainers is GA #5081
    • KEP-753: SidecarContainers update oom score adj logic #4932
  • Code (k/k) update PR(s): Promote SidecarContainers feature to GA kubernetes#129731
  • Docs (k/website) update(s): update SidecarContainers to stable in v1.33 website#49685

/sig node

Please keep this description up to date. This will help the Enhancement Team to track the evolution of the enhancement efficiently.

[Joseph-Irving]

@enisoc @dchen1107 @fejta @thockin @kow3ns @derekwaynecarr, opened this tracking issue so that we can discuss.

[kow3ns]

/assign

[Joseph-Irving]

@derekwaynecarr I've done some scoping out of the kubelet changes required for next week's sig-node meeting, I believe that changes are only needed in the kuberuntime package, specifically kuberuntime_manager.go in and kuberuntime_container.go.

In kuberuntime_manager.go you could modify computePodActions to implement the shutdown triggering (kill sidecars when all non-sidecars have permanently exited), and starting up the sidecars first.

In kuberuntime_container.go you could modify killContainersWithSyncResult for terminating the sidecars last and sending the preStop hooks (the preStop hooks bit was a bit debatable, it wasn't settled whether that should be done or not. @thockin had a good point about why you might not want to encourage that behaviour, see comment).

Let me know if you want me to investigate any further.

[resouer]

@kow3ns The discussion makes more sense to me if maybe we can define a full description of containers sequence in Pod spec (sig-app), and how to handle the sequence in kubelet for start, restart and cascading consideration (sig-node). Let's catch the Feb 5 sig-node meeting to give more inputs.

cc @Joseph-Irving

[luksa]

The proposal says that sidecars only run after the init containers run. But what if the use-case requires the sidecar to run while/before the init containers run. For example, if you'd like route the pod's traffic through a proxy running as a sidecar (as in Istio), you probably want that proxy to be in place while the init containers run in case the init container itself does network calls.

[Joseph-Irving]

@luksa I think there's the possibility of looking at having sidecars that run in init phase at some point but currently the proposal is not going to cover that use case. There is currently no way to have concurrent containers running in the init phase so that would be potentially a much larger/messier change than what is being suggested here.

[Joseph-Irving]

Update on this KEP:
I've spoken to both @derekwaynecarr and @dchen1107 from sig-node about this and they did not express any major concerns about the proposal. I will raise a PR to the KEP adding some initial notes around implementation details and clarifying a few points that came up during the discussion.

We still need to agree on the API, it seems there is consensus that a simple way of marking containers as sidecars is prefered over more in depth ordering flags. Having a bool is somewhat limiting though so perhaps something more along the lines of containerLifecycle: Sidecar would be preferable so that we have the option of expanding in the future.

[luksa]

@Joseph-Irving Actually, neither the boolean nor the containerLifecycle: Sidecar are appropriate for proper future extensibility. Instead, containerLifecycle should be an object, just like deployment.spec.strategy, with type: Sidecar. This would allow us to then introduce additional fields. For the "sidecar for the whole lifetime of the pod" solution, it would be expressed along these lines:

containerLifecycle: 
  type: Sidecar
  sidecar:
    scope: CompletePodLifetime

as opposed to

containerLifecycle: 
  type: Sidecar
  sidecar:
    scope: AfterInit

Please forgive my bad naming - I hope the names convey the idea.

But there is one problem with the approach where we introduce containerLifecycle to pod.spec.containers. Namely, it's wrong to have sidecars that run parallel to init containers specified under pod.spec.containers. So if you really want to be able to extend this to init containers eventually, you should find an alternative solution - one that would allow you to mark containers as sidecars at a higher level - i.e. not under pod.spec.containers or pod.spec.initContainers, but something like pod.spec.sidecarContainers, which I believe you already discussed, but dismissed. The init containers problem definitely calls for a solution along these lines.

[Joseph-Irving]

@luksa You could also solve the init problem by just allowing an init container to be marked as a sidecar and have that run alongside the init containers. As I understand it, the problem is that init containers sometimes need sidecars, which is different from needing a container that runs for the entire lifetime of the pod.

The problem with pod.spec.sidecarContainers is that it's a far more complex change, tooling would need to updated and the kubelet would require a lot of modifying to support another set of containers. The current proposal is far more modest, it's only building on what's already there.