Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DO NOT MERGE: ocp-next #1647

Draft
wants to merge 1,924 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

DO NOT MERGE: ocp-next #1647

wants to merge 1,924 commits into from

Conversation

bertinatto
Copy link
Member

Auto-generated by https://github.com/bertinatto/ocp-next.
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 27, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the backports/unvalidated-commits Indicates that not all commits come to merged upstream PRs. label Jul 27, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@bertinatto bertinatto marked this pull request as draft July 27, 2023 11:15
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 27, 2023
@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and mrunalp July 27, 2023 11:18
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files label Jul 27, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test images

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: could not list commits in this pull request. Please try again with /validate-backports.

Get "http://ghproxy/repos/openshift/kubernetes/pulls/1647/commits?per_page=100": dial tcp 172.30.229.2:80: i/o timeout

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-serial

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test all

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@bertinatto
Copy link
Member Author

/test all

bertinatto and others added 28 commits March 6, 2024 16:39
…util/managedfields

Some of the code we use in openshift-tests was recently made internal
in kubernetes#115065. This patch
exposes the code we need there.
…rnetes.default.svc, don't wait for aggregated availability
…roups

that have kinds that are served by both CRDs
and external apiservers (eg openshift-apiserver)

this includes:
- authorization.openshift.io (rolebindingrestrictions served by a CRD)
- security.openshift.io (securitycontextconstraints served by a CRD)
- quota.openshift.io (clusterresourcequotas served by a CRD)

By merging all sources, we ensure that kinds served by a CRD will have
openapi discovery and spec available even when openshift-apiserver is
unavailable.
…self-SARs that have user:check-access

Otherwise, the request will inherit any scopes that an access token might have
and the scopeAuthorizer will deny the access review if the scopes do not include
user:full
This commit renews openshift#327

What has changed compared to the original PR is:
- The retryClient interface has been adapted to storage.Interface.
- The isRetriableEtcdError method has been completely changed; it seems that previously the error we wanted to retry was not being retried. Even the unit tests were failing.

Overall, I still think this is not the correct fix. The proper fix should be added to the etcd client.

UPSTREAM: <carry>: retry etcd Unavailable errors

This is the second commit for the retry logic.
This commit adds unit tests and slightly improves the logging.

During a rebase squash with the previous one.
When a PerformanceProfile configures a node for cpu partitioning,
it also lets OVS use all the cpus available to burstable pods.
To be able to do that, OVS was moved to its own slice and that
slice needs to be re-added to cAdvisor for monitoring purposes.
Signed-off-by: Harshal Patil <harpatil@redhat.com>
Kubelet should advertise the shared cpus as extedned resources.
This has the benefit of limiting the amount of containers
that can request an access to the shared cpus.

For more information see - openshift/enhancements#1396

Signed-off-by: Talor Itzhak <titzhak@redhat.com>
Adding a new mutation plugin that handles the following:

1. In case of `workload.openshift.io/enable-shared-cpus` request, it
   adds an annotation to hint runtime about the request. runtime
   is not aware of extended resources, hence we need the annotation.
2. It validates the pod's QoS class and return an error if it's not a
   guaranteed QoS class
3. It validates that no more than a single resource is being request.
4. It validates that the pod deployed in a namespace that has mixedcpus
   workloads allowed annotation.

For more information see - openshift/enhancements#1396

Signed-off-by: Talor Itzhak <titzhak@redhat.com>
This commit needs to be carried until we rebase onto Kube 1.31.

We have backported the library changes to 1.28, which means they can then be used in 1.29.

Upstream, they were only introduced in 1.30 which means they wouldn't be usable until 1.31.

This allows us to improve our API validation from OpenShift 4.16 onwards, instead of OpenShift 4.18 onwards.
Updating the logic for pod admission to allow a pod creation with workload partitioning annotations to be run in a namespace that has no workload allow annoations.

The pod will be stripped of its workload annotations and treated as if it were normal, a warning annoation will be placed to note the behavior on the pod.

Signed-off-by: ehila <ehila@redhat.com>
Tests require SSH configuration and is part of the parallel suite, which
does not create the bastion host. Enabling the test would result in the
bastion being created for every parallel test execution. Given that we
have existing oc and WMCO  tests that cover this functionality, we can
safely disable it.
…to subpackages

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries
into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone
who installs `openshift-hyperkube` today as it requires all sub packages.
Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing
`openshift-hyperkube-kubelet`

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root  54M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is
all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this
packaging should remain compatible as openshift-hyperkube depends on
 - openshift-kubelet
 - openshift-kube-apiserver
 - openshift-kube-scheduler
 - openshift-kube-controller-manager
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bertinatto: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backports/unvalidated-commits Indicates that not all commits come to merged upstream PRs. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet