Fixed issue with duplicate containerPorts in different address families

[xcelsion]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
Allows duplicate containerPorts when hostIPs of different address families are supplied.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #82373

Special notes for your reviewer:
NONE

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
NONE

/sig network

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @xcelsion!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kubernetes 🎉. 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/kubernetes 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]

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]

Hi @xcelsion. 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.

[mattjmcnaughton]

@zouyee can you share more about how this relates to https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/80470/files?

Confirming that both are necessary and that we shouldn't combine both into the same pr?

[mattjmcnaughton]

@xcelsion please sign the CLA when you get a chance :) lmk if there's anything I can do to help with that.

[xcelsion]

@mattjmcnaughton, I'll get that done soonish. I had another thought about this PR, the way its set-up currently, a mapping in conflict with another mapping through the use of one 'any' and one family-specific, would both pass through. Should we be worried about that, or does the deduplication only concern unique names for rkt? If not, we need to find a way to handle that situation as well.

[mattjmcnaughton]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:09:59PM -0700, Niels van Oosterom wrote: @mattjmcnaughton, I'll get that done soonish. I had another thought about this PR, the way its set-up currently, a mapping in conflict with another mapping through the use of one 'any' and one family-specific, would both pass through. Should we be worried about that, or does the deduplication only concern unique names for rkt? If not, we need to find a way to handle that situation as well. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #82374 (comment)

Good question, but tbh I'm not sure the answer :) Hopefully someone else can weigh in!

[xcelsion]

I signed it

[xcelsion]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:09:59PM -0700, Niels van Oosterom wrote: @mattjmcnaughton, I'll get that done soonish. I had another thought about this PR, the way its set-up currently, a mapping in conflict with another mapping through the use of one 'any' and one family-specific, would both pass through. Should we be worried about that, or does the deduplication only concern unique names for rkt? If not, we need to find a way to handle that situation as well. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #82374 (comment)
Good question, but tbh I'm not sure the answer :) Hopefully someone else can weigh in!

Given that you can already circumvent the duplicate filter by assigning a unique name to the offending mappings, I lean towards the 'only relevant in the context of unique names for rkt' answer. If this is not the case then we should probably decouple the duplicate check from the unique name check.

[squeed]

/ok-to-test

The comment is now out-of-date - we need a portmapping name for the dockershim CNI driver (and rkt has been removed anyways). Can you please update it?

It may be that this code is no longer used outside of the dockershim, in which case we should move it.

[xmudrii]

@xcelsion Considering this PR is open for a several days now and that we have the upcoming deadline today, can you try to finish the review and the cherry-pick today? If not, we can't guarantee that it will be merged for 1.16 and we usually recommend to move the PR for a next patch release if it isn't urgent.

[xcelsion]

@xcelsion Considering this PR is open for a several days now and that we have the upcoming deadline today, can you try to finish the review and the cherry-pick today? If not, we can't guarantee that it will be merged for 1.16 and we usually recommend to move the PR for a next patch release if it isn't urgent.

How would I go about getting the review finished? As far as I understand it, my hands are tied until the reviewers @mattjmcnaughton, @sjenning, and @vishh have signed off on this, correct?

[idealhack]

@xcelsion Hi, right now I saw this labeled as priority/important-soon, so it does not really have to make it to the cherry-picks today (i.e. 1.16.0) and can go with next patch (1.16.1), unless you have reasons to believe it's priority/critical-urgent. Regarding reviewers, you are free to find other reviewers who can approve this.

[josiahbjorgaard]

@xcelsion 1.16 Bug triage team here, can you confirm that this can wait for 1.16.1 or that otherwise that it needs critical-urgent status? Deadline is EOD for 1.16.0 cherry picks.

[xcelsion]

Given that there is a workaround available, I'd say it can wait until v1.16.1. Perhaps we could add it to a known issues list or something?

Edit: I wouldn't have the time to get the cherry-pick out on time either way.

[lachie83]

cc @khenidak

[aramase]

lgtm

[xcelsion]

/assign @Random-Liu

[mattjmcnaughton]

No need to wait for my review here @xcelsion :)

I defer to @Random-Liu !

Thanks for your work :)

[xcelsion]

I have to admit I don't know how to proceed with this, I'm new to contributing on GitHub. Everything is good to go as far as I'm concerned.

[dims]

/milestone v1.17
/assign @yujuhong

@xcelsion now we wait for the approvers to apply the approve and lgtm labels. i've marked this for 1.17, so that should help as well. worst case you can them in the sig-node meetings and/or on the public slack channels

[yujuhong]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: xcelsion, yujuhong

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:

• pkg/kubelet/OWNERS [yujuhong]

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