Cilium - Add missing Identity Allocation Mode to Operator Template

[daviddyball]

In the course of debugging this Cilium Garbage Collection Issue it was noted that the default templates used for the cilium-operator Deployment were missing the --identity-allocation-mode argument.

The default configuration assumes that the Cilium version is > 1.6 with CRD backed identity management and as such the operator deployment should launch with the correct arguments for CRD-backed identity management.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
• If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
• Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @daviddyball!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kops 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kops has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @daviddyball. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[daviddyball]

I signed it

[rifelpet]

/ok-to-test

[daviddyball]

/retest

[olemarkus]

/test pull-kops-e2e-kubernetes-aws

[daviddyball]

@rifelpet This seems to be passing all checks now. It can be merged any time if you think it's good to go.

[rifelpet]

So the comments in the configmap suggest commenting out identity-allocation-mode which would cause new pods in the Deployment to fail because of the new configMapKeyRef. I suppose we can make that case that if users are editing the configmap in this manifest then they should also be expected to edit the Deployment.

As long as we think thats a reasonable expectation, I'm fine with getting this merged. Thoughts?

[daviddyball]

@rifelpet At the moment I don't think there is really an option to use non-CRD backed configuration with Kops deployments. Perhaps we can raise an additional issue to track adding support for non-CRD backed clusters and not let that hold up this PR?

[rifelpet]

Is non-CRD backed configuration commonly used for cilium? If not then we may wait until someone asks for it before doing any work to support it. If you want to open an issue to track that, feel free. I agree that doesn't need to hold this PR up.

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: daviddyball, rifelpet

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:

• OWNERS [rifelpet]

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

[daviddyball]

Yeh, non-CRD is quite popular, but CRD-backed is also the easiest to get started... so it's different horses for different courses really. I'll raise another issue to track support for non-CRD-backed Cilium clusters 👍