Handle ExternalIPPool range changes in Egress controller #6685
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
antoninbas
added
kind/bug
antoninbas
force-pushed
the
handle-external-ip-pool-range-changes
branch
from
7aca6af to
b93c832
Compare
tnqn
reviewed
Sep 24, 2024
| require.True(t, cache.WaitForCacheSync(stopCh, controller.externalIPAllocator.HasSynced)) | ||
| controller.restoreIPAllocations([]*v1beta1.Egress{egress}) | ||
|
|
||
| getEgressIP, _, err := controller.syncEgressIP(egress) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could it receive the returned egress and avoid updating the stored egress at L613 which may cause race condition?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made the change. By stored egress, do you mean the object stored by the fake clientset? They make a copy before adding it to the store:
https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/c5196ebcc18e1bf29561b7a689fdb121913d221b/testing/fixture.go#L534-L537
but based on the comment, the caller shouldn't modify the object anyway
The validation webhook for ExternalIPPools prevents modifications to IP address ranges. However, it is theoretically possible for an ExternalIPPool to be deleted, then recreated immediately with different IP address ranges, and for the Egress controller to only process the Egress resources referencing the pool once, *after* the CREATE event has been handled by the ExternalIPPool controller. This is because the ExternalIPPool controller is in charge of notifying the Egress controller through a callback (event handler) mechanism, and that multiple events for the same ExternalIPPool name can be merged in the workqueue. With this change, we try to ensure the same "observable" behavior for the Egress controller, regardless of whether the DELETE and CREATE events have been merged or not. The stale Egress IP should be removed, and a new Egress IP should be allocated from the new IP ranges (regardless of whether or not the initial Egress IP was specified by the user). Prior to this change, the change of IP address ranges would be silently ignored by the Egress controller. Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
antoninbas
force-pushed
the
handle-external-ip-pool-range-changes
branch
from
b93c832 to
fc16420
Compare
antoninbas
added
the
action/release-note
|
I think we don't need to backport this given how unlikely it is to happen in practice |
Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
|
@tnqn I found a bug in my implementation, so I addressed it in the last commit. I also found a better / simpler way of writing the test. |
|
/test-all |
xliuxu
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
xliuxu
previously approved these changes
Sep 25, 2024
|
/test-all |
hangyan
pushed a commit
to hangyan/antrea
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
) The validation webhook for ExternalIPPools prevents modifications to IP address ranges. However, it is theoretically possible for an ExternalIPPool to be deleted, then recreated immediately with different IP address ranges, and for the Egress controller to only process the Egress resources referencing the pool once, *after* the CREATE event has been handled by the ExternalIPPool controller. This is because the ExternalIPPool controller is in charge of notifying the Egress controller through a callback (event handler) mechanism, and that multiple events for the same ExternalIPPool name can be merged in the workqueue. With this change, we try to ensure the same "observable" behavior for the Egress controller, regardless of whether the DELETE and CREATE events have been merged or not. The stale Egress IP should be removed, and a new Egress IP should be allocated from the new IP ranges (regardless of whether or not the initial Egress IP was specified by the user). Prior to this change, the change of IP address ranges would be silently ignored by the Egress controller. Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The validation webhook for ExternalIPPools prevents modifications to IP address ranges. However, it is theoretically possible for an ExternalIPPool to be deleted, then recreated immediately with different IP address ranges, and for the Egress controller to only process the Egress resources referencing the pool once, after the CREATE event has been handled by the ExternalIPPool controller. This is because the ExternalIPPool controller is in charge of notifying the Egress controller through a callback (event handler) mechanism, and that multiple events for the same ExternalIPPool name can be merged in the workqueue.
With this change, we try to ensure the same "observable" behavior for the Egress controller, regardless of whether the DELETE and CREATE events have been merged or not. The stale Egress IP should be removed, and a new Egress IP should be allocated from the new IP ranges (regardless of whether or not the initial Egress IP was specified by the user).
Prior to this change, the change of IP address ranges would be silently ignored by the Egress controller.