move e2e hostport conflict test to sig-network

[aojea]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup
/kind failing-test

What this PR does / why we need it:

The test "validates that there is no conflict between pods with same
hostPort but different hostIP and protocol" was testing the scheduler
capability to schedule pods on the same node with hostPorts, however,
it wasn´t validating that the HostPorts was working, causing false
positives, because the pods were scheduled, but the HostPort exposed
wasn´t working.

In order to test the HostPort functionality, we have to use HostNetwork
pods, that are incompatible with Windows platforms. Also, since this
is touching both network and scheduling, there is no clear the ownership,
but sig-network is happy to adopt it.

We also add a new test for scheduling only under "scheduling", so Windows
folks can use it to test the scheduled in that platform.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #98075

Special notes for your reviewer:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

@aojea: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

[aojea]

/assign @spiffxp @dims @BenTheElder @johnbelamaric

I think that this conformance tests need to do more changes, just putting up the PR for discussion/guidance

xref: #98075

[damemi]

Agree that the functionality itself should belong to networking, while the scheduling test is sufficient for the scheduler's purposes. Thanks for addressing that todo!

/approve
from scheduling

[ravisantoshgudimetla]

Thank you for working on this @aojea

/approve

[jsturtevant]

/cc @jsturtevant

[aojea]

/assign @dcbw @danwinship
for sig network approval

[spiffxp]

/lgtm
/approve
for conformance, but since I am a test/ approver...
/hold
for network approvers that @aojea cc'ed, please /hold cancel if you're satisfied

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aojea, damemi, ravisantoshgudimetla, spiffxp

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:

• test/conformance/testdata/OWNERS [spiffxp]
• test/e2e/network/OWNERS [spiffxp]
• test/e2e/scheduling/OWNERS [damemi,ravisantoshgudimetla,spiffxp]

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

[aojea]

/hold cancel

I will take the blame for sig-network ;)

[aojea]

/retest
storage and node failures

[nraghavan86]

Hi,
Can you please let me know if this patch will be made available for k8s 1.20.1?

[aojea]

Hi,
Can you please let me know if this patch will be made available for k8s 1.20.1?

Can you elaborate on the need to backport this?

[nraghavan86]

Hi,
Can you please let me know if this patch will be made available for k8s 1.20.1?

Can you elaborate on the need to backport this?

I am currently using k8s v1.20.1 and I see the conformance tests are failing. The test case which is failing is "validates that there is no conflict between pods with same hostPort but different hostIP and protocol". The port 54321 is not getting opened which is causing the failure.
/bin/sh -c curl -g --connect-timeout 5 --interface x.x.x.x http://127.0.0.1:54321/hostname -> This particular curl is failing.

[Cheef5]

https://discord.gg/w8sSmkTk

[aojea]

The test was wrong and this fixed it, however, there were certain implementations with a bug that, because the test was wrong, were passing when they had to fail. If you are using dockershim you need this fix #98755

[johnbelamaric]

And that fix will be cherry picked back to 1.20, so that should do it.

…

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 9:27 AM Antonio Ojea ***@***.***> wrote: The test was wrong and this fixed it, however, there were certain implementations with a bug that, because the test was wrong, were passing when they had to fail. If you are using dockershim you need this fix #98755 <#98755> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#98299 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACIHRM5V5F4Z3BTOSWOYXY3S5V3ZPANCNFSM4WOER7JQ> .

[aojea]

I just cherry-picked it to 1.20 #98838, the next minor release will have the fix and pass the conformance test.
sorry for the inconveniences