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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

kube-proxy: Fix bug in rejecting 0 endpoint svc #72534

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 15, 2019
Merged

kube-proxy: Fix bug in rejecting 0 endpoint svc #72534

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 15, 2019

Conversation

thockin
Copy link
Member

@thockin thockin commented Jan 3, 2019

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

As cited in #20767 (thanks @vllry), we do not REJECT when we should (I think).

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

xref #20767
xref #19576

Special notes for your reviewer:

I can't find any reasons NOT to do this, butthat doesn't mean they don't exist.


Connections from Pods to Services with 0 endpoints will now ICMP reject immediately, rather than blackhole and timeout.

@m1093782566 Please cross-check with IPVS mode for similar changes?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Jan 3, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: thockin

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 3, 2019
@thockin thockin mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2019
Closed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Jan 3, 2019
@thockin thockin added the priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. label Jan 3, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. label Jan 3, 2019
@thockin
Copy link
Member Author

thockin commented Jan 3, 2019

/retest

@m1093782566
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, thanks @thockin

@m1093782566
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 4, 2019
@rramkumar1
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/hold
@m1093782566 Can you verify whether an IPVS PR is needed here? I would like to make sure that if we need an IPVS PR that it is at least LGTM'd before pushing this one through (so we stay in sync).

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 4, 2019
@vllry vllry mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2019
Merged
dcbw
dcbw approved these changes Jan 4, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@dcbw dcbw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Might solve some problems we've seen too...

@thockin
Copy link
Member Author

thockin commented Jan 14, 2019

@m1093782566 ping

@m1093782566
Copy link
Contributor

m1093782566 commented Jan 15, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@thockin

From my test, there is no such issue in IPVS mode, xref:

#20767 (comment)

@rramkumar1 I think we can let this PR in now.

/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 15, 2019
@m1093782566
Copy link
Contributor

/test pull-kubernetes-integration

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit fc28264 into kubernetes:master Jan 15, 2019
@marwinski marwinski mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2019
Closed
@tuminoid tuminoid mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2019
Closed
@vllry vllry mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2019
Closed
6 tasks
@bbrowning bbrowning mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2019
Closed
This was referenced Apr 12, 2019
Merged
Merged
Closed
k8s-ci-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Merge pull request #76529 from spencerhance/automated-cherry-pick-of-…
535e3ad 
…#72534-#74394-upstream-release-1.12

Automated cherry pick of #72534: kube-proxy: rename internal field for clarity #74394: Fix small race in e2e
This was referenced Apr 18, 2019
Closed
Closed
k8s-ci-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Merge pull request #76516 from spencerhance/automated-cherry-pick-of-…
abdda3f 
…#72534-#74394-upstream-release-1.13

Automated cherry pick of #72534: kube-proxy: rename internal field for clarity #74394: Fix small race in e2e
@zq-david-wang zq-david-wang mentioned this pull request Jun 14, 2019
Closed
@thockin thockin deleted the kube-proxy-reject-no-endpoints-bug branch August 14, 2019 17:42
@julz julz mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2020
Closed
@RedHawker RedHawker mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dcbw dcbw dcbw approved these changes

@justinsb justinsb Awaiting requested review from justinsb

Assignees

@m1093782566 m1093782566

@dcbw dcbw

@rramkumar1 rramkumar1

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@thockin @k8s-ci-robot @m1093782566 @rramkumar1 @fejta-bot @dcbw