Dockerfile.fedora:bump OVN to 23.09.0-131

[bpickard22]

picks up 683fb6d("controller: ofctrl: Use index for meter lookups.")

[igsilya]

@bpickard22 there is no such package in fedora. -112 is the latest one, AFAICT.
I asked maintainers if they can update the fedora builds to v23.09.2, but it may take some time.

[igsilya]

Build is now available: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114463184
Need to re-trigger CI on this PR. The easiest way is likely to close+re-open it.

[tssurya]

UTs failing: https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/actions/runs/8157543866/job/22297485313?pr=4199 need investigation

[igsilya]

Node Operations
/home/runner/work/ovn-kubernetes/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node/gateway_localnet_linux_test.go:221
  on add and delete
  /home/runner/work/ovn-kubernetes/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node/gateway_localnet_linux_test.go:1576
    manages iptables rules and openflows for NodePort backed by local-host-networked pods where ETP=local and ITP=local [It]
    /home/runner/work/ovn-kubernetes/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node/gateway_localnet_linux_test.go:2495

    Expected
        <[]string | len:4, cap:4>: [
            "cookie=0x453ae29bcbbc08bd, priority=110, in_port=eth0, tcp, tp_dst=31111, actions=ct(commit,zone=0,nat(dst=10.244.0.1:443),table=6)",
            "cookie=0xe745ecf105, priority=110, table=6, actions=output:LOCAL",
            "cookie=0x453ae29bcbbc08bd, priority=110, in_port=LOCAL, tcp, tp_src=443, actions=ct(zone=0 nat,table=7)",
            "cookie=0xe745ecf105, priority=110, table=7, actions=output:eth0",
        ]
    to equal
        <[]string | len:4, cap:4>: [
            "cookie=0x453ae29bcbbc08bd, priority=110, in_port=eth0, tcp, tp_dst=31111, actions=ct(commit,zone=64003,nat(dst=10.244.0.1:443),table=6)",
            "cookie=0xe745ecf105, priority=110, table=6, actions=output:LOCAL",
            "cookie=0x453ae29bcbbc08bd, priority=110, in_port=LOCAL, tcp, tp_src=443, actions=ct(zone=64003 nat,table=7)",
            "cookie=0xe745ecf105, priority=110, table=7, actions=output:eth0",
        ]

    /home/runner/work/ovn-kubernetes/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node/gateway_localnet_linux_test.go:2591

Aren't these flows on the br-ex bridge managed by ovn-kube? Why would they have different ct zone?

[igsilya]

@tssurya there is exactly the same issue in a different PR: https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/actions/runs/8157492515/job/22297343903#step:6:19314
So, it is likely unrelated to the changes in this PR.

[tssurya]

we want to bump this to 134 to also get the unSNAT fix

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for subtle-torrone-bb0c84 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	0293f50
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/subtle-torrone-bb0c84/deploys/65f4af8b7d224300080aa82f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4199--subtle-torrone-bb0c84.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[tssurya]

IIUC we are bringing down fixes for https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-29952 and https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-25889, the first one being a scale bug and I am ok to not be able to add tests there. What about the 2nd bug cc @bpickard22 and @martinkennelly : are we good with coverage there?

[tssurya]

also 2 lanes are red:
https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/actions/runs/8301961322/job/22723975823?pr=4199
https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/actions/runs/8301961322/job/22723975235?pr=4199 => can be ignored I guess

[trozet]

I think we need a test for the 2nd bug as @tssurya suggested. We can just make a nodeport service with a random backend pod, create another pod and send traffic from 2nd pod with source port of the node port service to the internet, see if the packet comes back to 2nd pod.

[martinkennelly]

IIUC we are bringing down fixes for https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-29952 and https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-25889, the first one being a scale bug and I am ok to not be able to add tests there. What about the 2nd bug cc @bpickard22 and @martinkennelly : are we good with coverage there?

No, theres no e2e that covers this that I am aware of.

[martinkennelly]

/close

in-favour of #4271