CSI: ensure that PastClaims are populated with correct mode #11932
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tgross
changed the title
This was referenced Jan 25, 2022
Constraint "CSI volume has exhausted its available writer claims": 1 nodes excluded by filter
#10927
Closed
|
I've tagged reviewers on this but it currently includes all the code in #11890 so y'all may want to wait till that's merged to review this one. |
In the client's `(*csiHook) Postrun()` method, we make an unpublish RPC that includes a claim in the `CSIVolumeClaimStateUnpublishing` state and using the mode from the client. But then in the `(*CSIVolume) Unpublish` RPC handler, we query the volume from the state store (because we only get an ID from the client). And when we make the client RPC for the node unpublish step, we use the _current volume's_ view of the mode. If the volume's mode has been changed before the old allocations can have their claims released, then we end up making a CSI RPC that will never succeed. Why does this code path get the mode from the volume and not the claim? Because the claim written by the GC job in `(*CoreScheduler) csiVolumeClaimGC` doesn't have a mode. Instead it just writes a claim in the unpublishing state to ensure the volumewatcher detects a "past claim" change and reaps all the claims on the volumes. Fix this by ensuring that the `CSIVolumeDenormalize` creates past claims for all nil allocations with a correct access mode set.
tgross
force-pushed
the
csi-postrun-mode
branch
from
9ba9e7a to
2154efd
Compare
This was referenced Jan 28, 2022
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2022
In the client's `(*csiHook) Postrun()` method, we make an unpublish RPC that includes a claim in the `CSIVolumeClaimStateUnpublishing` state and using the mode from the client. But then in the `(*CSIVolume) Unpublish` RPC handler, we query the volume from the state store (because we only get an ID from the client). And when we make the client RPC for the node unpublish step, we use the _current volume's_ view of the mode. If the volume's mode has been changed before the old allocations can have their claims released, then we end up making a CSI RPC that will never succeed. Why does this code path get the mode from the volume and not the claim? Because the claim written by the GC job in `(*CoreScheduler) csiVolumeClaimGC` doesn't have a mode. Instead it just writes a claim in the unpublishing state to ensure the volumewatcher detects a "past claim" change and reaps all the claims on the volumes. Fix this by ensuring that the `CSIVolumeDenormalize` creates past claims for all nil allocations with a correct access mode set.
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2022
In the client's `(*csiHook) Postrun()` method, we make an unpublish RPC that includes a claim in the `CSIVolumeClaimStateUnpublishing` state and using the mode from the client. But then in the `(*CSIVolume) Unpublish` RPC handler, we query the volume from the state store (because we only get an ID from the client). And when we make the client RPC for the node unpublish step, we use the _current volume's_ view of the mode. If the volume's mode has been changed before the old allocations can have their claims released, then we end up making a CSI RPC that will never succeed. Why does this code path get the mode from the volume and not the claim? Because the claim written by the GC job in `(*CoreScheduler) csiVolumeClaimGC` doesn't have a mode. Instead it just writes a claim in the unpublishing state to ensure the volumewatcher detects a "past claim" change and reaps all the claims on the volumes. Fix this by ensuring that the `CSIVolumeDenormalize` creates past claims for all nil allocations with a correct access mode set.
|
Removed the |
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 120 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #10927 (comment).
In the client's
(*csiHook) Postrun()method, we make an unpublish RPC that includes a claim in theCSIVolumeClaimStateUnpublishingstate and using the mode from the client. But then in the(*CSIVolume) UnpublishRPC handler, we query the volume from the state store (because we only get an ID from the client). And when we make the client RPC for the node unpublish step, we use the current volume's view of the mode. If the volume's mode has been changed before the old allocations can have their claims released, then we end up making a CSI RPC that will never succeed.Why does this code path get the mode from the volume and not the claim? Because the claim written by the GC job in
(*CoreScheduler) csiVolumeClaimGCdoesn't have a mode. Instead it just writes a claim in the unpublishing state to ensure the volumewatcher detects a "past claim" change and reaps all the claims on the volumes.Fix this by ensuring that the
CSIVolumeDenormalizecreates past claims for all nil allocations with a correct access mode set. This ends up being a fairly large refactoring of the method because otherwise fixing the mode ends up repeating the past claim construction in 4 places and balloons the size of the method.