Add ability to configure kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration #75499

marccarre · 2019-03-20T07:22:14Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/sig cluster-lifecycle

What this PR does / why we need it:
This adds a more declarative way to configure ignored pre-flight errors -- via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration, in addition to the "legacy" CLI flag -- and therefore simplifies programmatic usage of kubeadm: just one configuration file to generate & to pass to kubeadm.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #74246.
Fixes kubernetes/kubeadm/issues/1460.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors can now be configured via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration.

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-03-20T07:22:21Z

Hi @marccarre. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

neolit123

thanks for the PR @marccarre
i think, this is pretty much what we want to do, except that it has to happen in v1beta2.

/assign @rosti @fabriziopandini
/hold

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1beta1/types.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/init.go

neolit123 · 2019-03-20T08:05:03Z

@marccarre
please squash the commits into one.
/priority important-longterm

rosti

Thanks for your contribution @marccarre !
The thing is that we should not modify the existing v1beta1 config. We have to do that modification in the new v1beta2 config if we reach a consensus on that.
Also, my proposition is to have that field in the NodeRegistrationOptions only.

Let's hold this for now, until the time comes for it.
/hold

marccarre · 2019-03-21T06:32:08Z

@rosti, @neolit123, thanks for your feedback ✨
I've addressed some of it (and will squash at the very end once everyone is happy about this PR), but now face build issues as per #75499 (comment). Apologies for being new to kubeadm/kubernetes' development, but any pointer on how to resolve this would be very much appreciated.

rosti

Thanks for updating this @marccarre !
However, we need to hold on until the new config (probably v1beta2) becomes available. More developments on this question are to come probably next week.
We need to add the new field in that config and the internal one (not in v1beta1 or v1alpha3).
I'll ping you for a rebase and more guidance once we are ready for this.
It's just that we need to do a few more things before we can proceed with this.

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/types.go

marccarre · 2019-03-21T11:35:40Z

we need to hold on until the new config (probably v1beta2) becomes available

Sure, no worries. I'll wait then 🙂

I haven't dug into the code generation logic (yet), but I'm guessing some of the build issues I'm seeing will change/disappear once v1beta2 is added.

rosti · 2019-03-21T14:04:55Z

I haven't dug into the code generation logic (yet), but I'm guessing some of the build issues I'm seeing will change/disappear once v1beta2 is added.

Mostly yes.

rosti · 2019-04-30T10:52:27Z

@marccarre, with the merger of #76710 you are now able to continue working on this based on v1beta2.
In addition to that we need to verify the new field and make sure it cannot be set to "all" and therefore ignore all pre-flight errors from the config easily.
Thanks for taking this on!

kad · 2019-05-14T12:27:48Z

I thought about this PR, and I think the better way to implement that will be to modify validation.ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors such, that it will take two arrays of strings as arguments. One from command line, one from config objects. Then, merging into one set can be done inside validation.ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors by iterating both of the arrays, practically getting rid of helper function union. Also it would be good to validate that array from config object will not contain 'all', as config object should not be used as "hide everything" workarround, instead of explicitly specifying what should be ignored.

marccarre · 2019-05-15T10:49:57Z

@rosti, @fabriziopandini, @neolit123, @kad, I've just rebased this PR on top of latest master, added the necessary changes for v1beta2 and addressed the feedback given so far (thank you all! 🙇). PTAL 🙂

kad · 2019-05-15T10:59:07Z

Please squash commits. One for implementation/code changes part, one commit for auto-generated stuff.

rosti

Thanks for the update @marccarre !
So far it looks great!
However, we need to deny the ability to specify "all" in the config file (but still permit it in the command line). Once that is done we can merge it.

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1beta1/conversion.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1beta2/types.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/init.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/init_test.go

rosti · 2019-05-15T11:57:56Z

/ok-to-test

rosti · 2019-05-15T12:07:56Z

I thought about this PR, and I think the better way to implement that will be to modify validation.ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors such, that it will take two arrays of strings as arguments. One from command line, one from config objects. Then, merging into one set can be done inside validation.ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors by iterating both of the arrays, practically getting rid of helper function union. Also it would be good to validate that array from config object will not contain 'all', as config object should not be used as "hide everything" workarround, instead of explicitly specifying what should be ignored.

That's one way of doing it.
I would like to keep things simple and scope of functionality clear, hence ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors should still perform only validation of errors, but with a bool param stating the origin of the ignored errors. This is where "all" from a config file should be checked.
Then a wrapper func, that takes a couple of sets (one from command line, another from the config) would call ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors twice. If the "all" keyword is present in the command line errors, it's returned as a set with a single element. Otherwise, the sets need to be combined.

kad · 2019-05-15T14:03:54Z

Then a wrapper func, that takes a couple of sets (one from command line, another from the config) would call ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors twice. If the "all" keyword is present in the command line errors, it's returned as a set with a single element. Otherwise, the sets need to be combined.

This will require third iteration over the combined set with check, for mixture or all plus individual check, like it is currently performed in validation.ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors.

marccarre · 2019-05-16T10:32:02Z

I hope to have addressed both your requirements.
PTAL, @rosti, @kad, and thanks again for your feedback! ✨
(Previous push had some tests failing, if there still are some after this push, I'll then look into this.)

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation_test.go

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go

kad

small nits

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go

kad · 2019-05-16T12:51:42Z

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/init.go

+		return nil, err
+	}
+	// Also set the union of pre-flight errors to InitConfiguration, to provide a consistent view of the runtime configuration:
+	cfg.NodeRegistration.IgnorePreflightErrors = ignorePreflightErrorsSet.List()


Also nit: do we have usage of this somewhere? Otherwise we are loosing prestine state as we read from config file, isn't it?

This is currently not used anywhere, but given the configuration object is passed around, and this field could eventually be used elsewhere as a result, I thought doing the above might reduce the chance of a bug/inconsistent behaviour. I can remove it if you'd rather keep the configuration file's initial state. Let me know.

rosti

Thanks @marccarre !
A couple of nits and we are there!

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go

rosti · 2019-05-16T14:45:24Z

Ok, the fuzzer test is failing, because we don't have the IgnorePreflightErrors in v1beta1. To fix this, we must reintroduce the fuzzNodeRegistration in the fuzzer test and plug the IgnorePreflightErrors field.
#75261 is the PR that got it deleted. You can check with it how to reintroduce it.
The new version of it should roughly look like this:

func fuzzNodeRegistration(obj *kubeadm.NodeRegistrationOptions, c fuzz.Continue) {	
	c.FuzzNoCustom(obj)	

 	// Pinning values for fields that get defaults if fuzz value is empty string or nil (thus making the round trip test fail)	
	obj.IgnorePreflightErrors = nil
}

Also, the reset test needs fixing (missing parameter in the call to ValidateIgnorePreflightErrors).

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/join_test.go

rosti

Thank you @marccarre !
I am happy how things turned out. Can you squash your commits as a final step so we can merge it?
/approve
/hold
For the squash.

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-05-22T14:32:22Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: marccarre, rosti

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:

~~cmd/kubeadm/OWNERS~~ [rosti]

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

Specifically, IgnorePreflightErrors in {Init,Join}Configuration's NodeRegistrationOptions can be used to achieve this. See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XnP67oO1i9VcDIpw42IzptnJsc5OQM-HTf8cVcjCR2w/edit

This commit contains only changes generated by the build process. Nothing here was manually changed. Changes made to: ``` cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/BUILD cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/BUILD ``` were generated by running: ```` ./hack/update-bazel.sh ```

marccarre · 2019-05-23T07:23:49Z

Done: PR rebased on top of latest master and commits squashed.
Thanks again for the feedback! 👍

rosti · 2019-05-23T08:31:34Z

@kad can you do a final pass and lgtm if you are happy with this?
/assign @kad
/hold cancel
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

kad · 2019-05-23T17:22:54Z

/lgtm
I have some doubts about some corner cases like in order of operations in upgrade steps (e.g. validating flags before/after trying to load cluster config), but I think it is not a big deal at the moment.

fejta-bot · 2019-05-23T21:00:00Z

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

fejta-bot · 2019-05-24T00:09:00Z

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

This fixes possible problems when kubeadm upgrade can't load the InitConfig properly. Some new code introduced in kubernetes#75499 is placed between the loading of the config and the error handling, hiding possible errors. This error cannot be ignored (as is the case now), since the cfg ptr. returned from the configutil function will be nil in the case of an error. Signed-off-by: Odin Ugedal <[email protected]>

k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. area/kubeadm labels Mar 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot requested review from kad and neolit123 March 20, 2019 07:23

k8s-ci-robot assigned fabriziopandini Mar 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot assigned rosti Mar 20, 2019

neolit123 reviewed Mar 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1beta1/types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/init.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

k8s-ci-robot added priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Mar 20, 2019

rosti reviewed Mar 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

rosti reviewed Mar 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rosti reviewed May 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label May 15, 2019

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label May 15, 2019

kad suggested changes May 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kad reviewed May 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

rosti reviewed May 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/validation/validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

marccarre commented May 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/join_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

rosti approved these changes May 22, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 22, 2019

marccarre added 2 commits May 23, 2019 16:22

kubeadm errors now ignorable via v1beta2 config files

e706d27

Specifically, IgnorePreflightErrors in {Init,Join}Configuration's NodeRegistrationOptions can be used to achieve this. See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XnP67oO1i9VcDIpw42IzptnJsc5OQM-HTf8cVcjCR2w/edit

k8s-ci-robot assigned kad May 23, 2019

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 23, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 23, 2019

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 73b8011 into kubernetes:master May 24, 2019

marccarre deleted the issues/74246-more-decl-kubeadm-cli-args branch May 24, 2019 05:45

odinuge mentioned this pull request Jun 1, 2019

Fix error handling for loading initCfg in kubeadm #78611

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add ability to configure kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration #75499

Add ability to configure kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration #75499

marccarre commented Mar 20, 2019 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 20, 2019

neolit123 left a comment

neolit123 commented Mar 20, 2019

rosti left a comment

marccarre commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti left a comment

marccarre commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti commented Apr 30, 2019

kad commented May 14, 2019

marccarre commented May 15, 2019

kad commented May 15, 2019

rosti left a comment

rosti commented May 15, 2019

rosti commented May 15, 2019

kad commented May 15, 2019

marccarre commented May 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading

kad left a comment

kad May 16, 2019

marccarre May 18, 2019

rosti left a comment

rosti commented May 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading

rosti left a comment

k8s-ci-robot commented May 22, 2019

marccarre commented May 23, 2019

rosti commented May 23, 2019

kad commented May 23, 2019

fejta-bot commented May 23, 2019

fejta-bot commented May 24, 2019

Add ability to configure kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration #75499

Add ability to configure kubeadm's ignored pre-flight errors via InitConfiguration and JoinConfiguration #75499

Conversation

marccarre commented Mar 20, 2019 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 20, 2019

neolit123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

neolit123 commented Mar 20, 2019

rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marccarre commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marccarre commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti commented Mar 21, 2019

rosti commented Apr 30, 2019

kad commented May 14, 2019

marccarre commented May 15, 2019

kad commented May 15, 2019

rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rosti commented May 15, 2019

rosti commented May 15, 2019

kad commented May 15, 2019

marccarre commented May 16, 2019 • edited Loading

kad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kad May 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marccarre May 18, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rosti commented May 16, 2019 • edited Loading

rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented May 22, 2019

marccarre commented May 23, 2019

rosti commented May 23, 2019

kad commented May 23, 2019

fejta-bot commented May 23, 2019

fejta-bot commented May 24, 2019

marccarre commented Mar 20, 2019 •

edited

Loading

marccarre commented May 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading

rosti commented May 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading