OCPBUGS-22974: [release-4.14] manage-security-groups: Only add SGs to LB members (#2455)

[dulek]

Previous code for manage-security-groups were adding the SGs to all the ports attached to the Node. That doesn't make a lot of sense, we only need this traffic opened to the LB members and we only add one port of the Node as the LB member. Moreover we've even tried to add SGs to the ports that had port_security_enabled=false which obviously failed.

This patch makes sure that we only add the SG opening NodePort traffic to the port that is actually plugged into the LB. Moreover it adds a check for port_security_enabled to make sure that ports with it disabled are ignored.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dulek: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974, which is invalid:

• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.15.0 and in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Previous code for manage-security-groups were adding the SGs to all the ports attached to the Node. That doesn't make a lot of sense, we only need this traffic opened to the LB members and we only add one port of the Node as the LB member. Moreover we've even tried to add SGs to the ports that had port_security_enabled=false which obviously failed.

This patch makes sure that we only add the SG opening NodePort traffic to the port that is actually plugged into the LB. Moreover it adds a check for port_security_enabled to make sure that ports with it disabled are ignored.

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.

[openshift-ci]

@dulek: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-openstack-parallel	635d363	link	false	/test e2e-openstack-parallel

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

[dulek]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dulek: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974, which is invalid:

• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22246 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

[stephenfin]

Looks like a clean backport save for the addition of vendoring.

/lgtm
/approve

[mandre]

Yep, clean backport of kubernetes#2455.

/lgtm
/label backport-risk-assessed

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dulek, mandre, stephenfin

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 [dulek,mandre,stephenfin]

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

[dulek]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dulek: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.14.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.z)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
• dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22246 is in the state Verified, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
• dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22246 targets the "4.15.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.15.0
• bug has dependents

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (itbrown@redhat.com), skipping review request.

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

[openshift-ci]

@rlobillo: The label(s) /label cherry-pick-approval cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, jira/valid-bug, staff-eng-approved. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label cherry-pick-approval

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.

[rlobillo]

/label cherry-pick-approved

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dulek: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/cloud-provider-openstack#244

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22974 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Previous code for manage-security-groups were adding the SGs to all the ports attached to the Node. That doesn't make a lot of sense, we only need this traffic opened to the LB members and we only add one port of the Node as the LB member. Moreover we've even tried to add SGs to the ports that had port_security_enabled=false which obviously failed.

This patch makes sure that we only add the SG opening NodePort traffic to the port that is actually plugged into the LB. Moreover it adds a check for port_security_enabled to make sure that ports with it disabled are ignored.

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.

[openshift-merge-robot]

Fix included in accepted release 4.14.0-0.nightly-2023-11-10-224016

[openshift-bot]

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build csi-driver-manila-container-v4.14.0-202311211133.p0.gaf51129.assembly.stream for distgit csi-driver-manila.
All builds following this will include this PR.