kubeadm: sort pod Volumes and VolumeMounts #70027
Merged
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
Order of Volumes and VolumeMounts in the pod objects created by
kubeadm is undefined as they're represended as maps in the
controlPlaneHostPathMounts struct.
This influences 'kubeadm upgrade' logic in a way that even when
manifest of the component is not changed kubeadm tries to upgrade
it because most of the time current and new pods are not equal
due to the different order of Volumes and VolumeMounts.
For example 'kubeadm apply diff' almost always shows difference
in Volumes and VolumeMounts because of this:
volumeMounts:
+ - mountPath: /etc/kubernetes/pki
+ name: k8s-certs
+ readOnly: true
- mountPath: /etc/ssl/certs
name: ca-certs
+ readOnly: true
+ - mountPath: /etc/pki
+ name: etc-pki
+ readOnly: true
+ - mountPath: /usr/share/ca-certificates
+ name: usr-share-ca-certificates
readOnly: true
- mountPath: /etc/ca-certificates
name: etc-ca-certificates
readOnly: true
- - mountPath: /etc/pki
- name: etc-pki
- readOnly: true
- - mountPath: /etc/kubernetes/pki
- name: k8s-certs
- readOnly: true
- - mountPath: /usr/share/ca-certificates
- name: usr-share-ca-certificates
- readOnly: true
Sorting Volumes and VolumeMounts should fix this issue and help
to avoid unnecessary upgrades.
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/kubeadm
sig/cluster-lifecycle
|
/cc @neolit123 |
neolit123
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2018
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bart0sh thank you for this PR.
i think the PR is pretty self-explanatory and the sorted volumes is something we should definitely have.
one small request: please prefix the kubeadm release notes like so - e.g. kubeadm: note goes here.....
thanks
/lgtm
/assign @timothysc
/assign @liztio
(as per upgrade diff).
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bart0sh, timothysc 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Order of Volumes and VolumeMounts in the pod objects created by
kubeadm is undefined as they're represended as maps in the
controlPlaneHostPathMounts struct.
This influences 'kubeadm upgrade' logic in a way that even when
manifest of the component is not changed kubeadm tries to upgrade
it because most of the time current and new pods are not equal
due to the different order of Volumes and VolumeMounts.
For example 'kubeadm apply diff' almost always shows difference
in Volumes and VolumeMounts because of this:
Sorting Volumes and VolumeMounts should fix this issue and help
to avoid unnecessary upgrades.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes kubernetes/kubeadm#1054
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: