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.

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

[release-1.29] Multi-slb related bug fixes #7607

Merged

Conversation

nilo19
Copy link
Contributor

@nilo19 nilo19 commented Nov 19, 2024

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

  1. All endpointslices of a local service should be included in local backend pool updater, instead of only the first endpointslice.
  2. In some rare cases, migration from NIC to IP-based LB can be in a middle state where the NIC references are removed, but those IPConfigs in the backend pool are not. In this case, we should manually exclude those IPConfigs from the request body.
  3. localServiceOwnsBackendPool should compare the full backend pool name, not just prefix, because two service names can share the same prefix.
  4. There is a corner case when the cluster is being updated to multi-slb from classic NIC-based single lb, not from an IP-based cluster. In this case, if the service being reconciled is local, the cloud provider will try to update a NIC pool to IP-based pool direct, which is not allowed. We should skip adding IPs to NIC-based pool in multi-slb mode.
  5. There is a bug in ReconcileBackendPools, where we by mistake parse the LB name to use as the backend pool name.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #7113
Fixes #7200
Fixes #6980

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Fix: several bugs related to multiple standard load balancers mode.
1. All endpointslices of a local service should be included in local backend pool updater, instead of only the first endpointslice.
2. In some rare cases, migration from NIC to IP-based LB can be in a middle state where the NIC references are removed, but those IPConfigs in the backend pool are not. In this case, we should manually exclude those IPConfigs from the request body.
3. localServiceOwnsBackendPool should compare the full backend pool name, not just prefix, because two service names can share the same prefix.
4. There is a corner case when the cluster is being updated to multi-slb from classic NIC-based single lb, not from an IP-based cluster. In this case, if the service being reconciled is local, the cloud provider will try to update a NIC pool to IP-based pool direct, which is not allowed. We should skip adding IPs to NIC-based pool in multi-slb mode.
5. There is a bug in ReconcileBackendPools, where we by mistake parse the LB name to use as the backend pool name.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


@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. labels Nov 19, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nilo19

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 cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Nov 19, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 19, 2024
@nilo19 nilo19 force-pushed the fix/cherry-pick-7432-1-29 branch from 2374203 to 87e1b46 Compare November 19, 2024 00:50
@MartinForReal
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/aaprove

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 19, 2024
@MartinForReal
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@nilo19
Copy link
Contributor Author

nilo19 commented Nov 19, 2024

/retest

2 similar comments
@nilo19
Copy link
Contributor Author

nilo19 commented Nov 19, 2024

/retest

@nilo19
Copy link
Contributor Author

nilo19 commented Nov 20, 2024

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 59ba933 into kubernetes-sigs:release-1.29 Nov 20, 2024
16 checks passed
@nilo19 nilo19 deleted the fix/cherry-pick-7432-1-29 branch November 20, 2024 08:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants