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

feat: local rate limit #2258

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Dec 21, 2023
Merged

feat: local rate limit #2258

merged 21 commits into from
Dec 21, 2023

Conversation

zhaohuabing
Copy link
Member

Related issue: #1336

@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing requested a review from a team as a code owner November 30, 2023 13:13
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing marked this pull request as draft November 30, 2023 13:13
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing changed the title local rate limit feat: local rate limit Nov 30, 2023
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 30, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 142 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (c2f88f0) 64.59% compared to head (b1cdeb1) 64.71%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
internal/gatewayapi/backendtrafficpolicy.go 67.66% 59 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
internal/xds/translator/local_ratelimit.go 76.14% 39 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
internal/ir/zz_generated.deepcopy.go 0.00% 25 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2258      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   64.59%   64.71%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         112      113       +1     
  Lines       16072    16442     +370     
==========================================
+ Hits        10382    10640     +258     
- Misses       5038     5132      +94     
- Partials      652      670      +18     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing force-pushed the local-rate-limit branch 6 times, most recently from 47d6937 to 9734e3a Compare December 1, 2023 08:17
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing marked this pull request as ready for review December 1, 2023 08:17
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing force-pushed the local-rate-limit branch 9 times, most recently from c363f43 to 186f0a1 Compare December 1, 2023 12:46
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing marked this pull request as draft December 2, 2023 01:53
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing force-pushed the local-rate-limit branch 8 times, most recently from e8b3dec to 726beb4 Compare December 4, 2023 02:09
@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pull request December 15, 2023 22:58 Inactive
@@ -91,6 +133,7 @@ const (
SourceMatchExact SourceMatchType = "Exact"
// SourceMatchDistinct Each IP Address within the specified Source IP CIDR is treated as a distinct client selector
// and uses a separate rate limit bucket/counter.
// Note: This is only supported for Global Rate Limits.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggest creating separate fields for Local and Global or adding CEL validation we cannot support something like Distinct for local

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am inclined to add a CEL validation. It's simpler.

Copy link
Member Author

@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing Dec 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This has been validated when translating GatewayAPI to IR, and the Policy status is set to Invalid if the type is Distinct.

I tried to validate it with the below CEL rule but no luck:

// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="self.rules.all(r, has(r.clientSelectors)? (r.clientSelectors.all(s, has(s.sourceCIDR) && has(s.sourceCIDR.type)? s.sourceCIDR.type!='Distinct' : true)) : true)", message="Distinct SourceMatchType is not supported for Local Rate Limit"

And verified it on https://playcel.undistro.io/.

However, k8s throws the below error, complaining this rule is invalid.

Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	unable to install CRDs onto control plane: unable to create CRD instances: unable to create CRD "backendtrafficpolicies.gateway.envoyproxy.io": CustomResourceDefinition.apiextensions.k8s.io "backendtrafficpolicies.gateway.envoyproxy.io" is invalid: spec.validation.openAPIV3Schema.properties[spec].properties[rateLimit].properties[local].properties[rules].x-kubernetes-validations[0].rule: Invalid value: apiextensions.ValidationRule{Rule:"self.rules.all(r, has(r.clientSelectors)? (r.clientSelectors.all(s, has(s.sourceCIDR) && has(s.sourceCIDR.type)? s.sourceCIDR.type!='Distinct' : true)) : true)", Message:"Distinct SourceMatchType is not supported for Local Rate Limit", MessageExpression:""}: compilation failed: ERROR: <input>:1:5: type 'list_type:{elem_type:{message_type:"selfType61480208.@idx"}}' does not support field selection
        	            	 | self.rules.all(r, has(r.clientSelectors)? (r.clientSelectors.all(s, has(s.sourceCIDR) && has(s.sourceCIDR.type)? s.sourceCIDR.type!='Distinct' : true)) : true)

Maybe I can try CEL later in a follow-up PR.

// rate limit decisions of all matching rules. For example, if a request
// matches two rules, one rate limited and one not, the final decision will be
// to rate limit the request.
// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxItems=16
Copy link
Member Author

@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing Dec 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adding a few lines to explain what happens if a request matches multiple rules, originally from https://github.com/envoyproxy/ratelimit?tab=readme-ov-file#example-2

// Rules are a list of RateLimit selectors and limits. If a request matches
// multiple rules, the strictest limit is applied. For example, if a request
// matches two rules, one with 10rps and one with 20rps, the final limit will
// be based on the rule with 10rps.
Copy link
Member Author

@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing Dec 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Signed-off-by: huabing zhao <[email protected]>
@zhaohuabing zhaohuabing requested review from arkodg and zirain December 21, 2023 00:41
Signed-off-by: huabing zhao <[email protected]>
@zhaohuabing
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@arkodg arkodg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM thanks !

Copy link
Contributor

@zirain zirain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, let's finish user-face doc with following PRs.

@zirain zirain merged commit da0d0dc into envoyproxy:main Dec 21, 2023
18 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants