add building without in tree providers

keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190729-building-without-in-tree-providers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+---
+title: Building Kubernetes Without In-Tree Cloud Providers
+authors:
+ - "@BenTheElder"
+owning-sig: sig-cloud-provider
+participating-sigs:
+ - sig-release
+ - sig-testing
+reviewers:
+ - "@spiffxp"
+ - "@cheftako"
+ - "@andrewsykim"
+ - "@stephenaugustus"
+approvers:
+ - "@cheftako"
+ - "@andrewsykim"
+ - "@spiffxp"
+ - "@stephenaugustus"
+editor: TBD
+creation-date: 2019-07-29
+last-updated: 2019-07-29
+status: implementable
+see-also:
+ - "/keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md"
+---
+
+# Building Kubernetes Without In-Tree Cloud Providers
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+ - [Goals](#goals)
+ - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+ - [User Stories [optional]](#user-stories-optional)
+ - [Story 1](#story-1)
+ - [Story 2](#story-2)
+ - [Story 3](#story-3)
+ - [Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]](#implementation-detailsnotesconstraints-optional)
+ - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+ - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+ - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+ - [Alpha -&gt; Beta Graduation](#alpha---beta-graduation)
+ - [Beta -&gt; GA Graduation](#beta---ga-graduation)
+ - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+ - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks [optional]](#drawbacks-optional)
+- [Alternatives [optional]](#alternatives-optional)
+- [Infrastructure Needed [optional]](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+- [x] kubernetes/enhancements issue in release milestone, which links to KEP (this should be a link to the KEP location in kubernetes/enhancements, not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] KEP approvers have set the KEP status to `implementable`
+- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented
+- [x] Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
+- [x] Graduation criteria is in place
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [x] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [x] Supporting documentation e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal outlines a plan to enable building Kubernetes without the in-tree
+cloud providers in preparation for [removing them entirely](keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md).
+
+## Motivation
+
+The in tree cloud-provider implementations are being [removed](keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md) in the future, this involves a large amount
+of code that is used in many places in tree. In order to prepare for this eventuality
+it would be helpful to see what that removal entails exactly and verify that Kubernetes
+will continue to function correctly. Doing so is a bit tricky without ensuring
+that the in-tree provider code is not being used via some unexpected side-channel
+(such as `init()` methods). Building binaries without the in-tree cloud provider
+packages would allow us to verify this and additionally provide experimentally
+smaller / cheaper binaries for parties interested in out of tree provider or 
+no provider based clusters.
+
+### Goals
+
+- Enable building Kubernetes without in-tree cloud providers and without forking
+ - Enable testing out of tree providers with a simulation of the future removal of the in-tree code.
+ - Enable experimentation with cloud-provider-less clusters
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+- Building the out of tree providers
+- Changing the official Kubernetes release builds
+- Building the e2e tests 
+ - Decoupling cloud providers is a larger problem there and not necessary to test out-of-tree providers or build smaller binaries
+- Mechanisms for migrating to out of tree providers
+ - CSI Migration for in-tree Volumes is already underway in SIG Storage
+ - External Credential Providers is being written / solved in another KEP ([#541](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/541))
+ - CCMs and overall scope for moving out of tree is in [removing-in-tree-providers](keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md)
+
+## Proposal
+
+We will add a [build constraints](https://golang.org/pkg/go/build/#hdr-Build_Constraints)
+to the cloud provider code for a pseudo "build tag" specifying not to include
+any in-tree provider code. This will allow compiling the binaries as normal today
+and simulating the removal of this code by specifying the tag at build time and
+triggering the build constraints on the files in these packages.
+
+Some small adjustments may be necessary to the code base to ensure that the
+other packages can build without depending on these packages.
+
+A prototype is available in [kubernetes/kubernetes#80353](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/80353).
+
+To ensure that this continues to function we will add CI building in this mode,
+and CI running end to end tests against it (see the test plan).
+
+### User Stories [optional]
+
+#### Story 1
+
+As an out of tree cloud provider implementer, I want to develop and test against
+Kubernetes without the in tree providers.
+
+Kubernetes out of tree cloud provider developers will be able to build Kubernetes
+in this mode and build & test their cloud-controller-manager implementations and
+associated tooling against this build in preparation for the actual hard removal
+of the in-tree providers.
+
+#### Story 2
+
+As a developer working to replace an in-tree provider with an out-of-tree provider,
+I am attempting to validate that I work with KAS/KCM/Kubelet which do not have 
+(my) in-tree cloud-provider compiled in and have successfully migrated all the 
+functionality I need to CCM/CSI/... Using this build ensures the relevant 
+functionality is not in KAS/KCM/Kubelet. It also allows me to work with 
+smaller binaries.
+
+#### Story 3
+
+As a [kind](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) developer / user I want to 
+use Kubernetes binaries without cloud providers for local clusters.
+
+Developers and users will be able to build local clusters leveraging this mode
+to not pay for cloud providers they are unable to use.
+
+### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]
+
+This is implemented using a synthetic `nolegacyproviders` tag in go build
+constraints on the relevant sources. If `GOFLAGS=-tags=nolegacyproviders` is set
+then the legacy cloud provider pacakges will be excluded from the build.
+
+In order to make this work the following additional changes are made:
+
+- Packages that we fully exclude (the legacy provider packages) _must_ contain
+a `doc.go` file or any other file that does NOT contain any code or build 
+constraints. Go will not allow "building" a package without any files passing
+the constraints, however it will happily build a package with no actual methods
+/ variables / ...
+
+- A few locations in the code do not properly use the cloud provider interface,
+some of these must be updated with both a "with provider" version and a
+"without provider" version broken out of the existing code. In particular this 
+includes the in-tree volumes until CSI migration is standard, and the GCE IPAM
+logic in kube-controller-manager.
+
+In particular this adds tags / constraints to:
+- `staging/src/k8s.io/legacy-cloud-providers/*` (constraints on all the providers)
+- `pkg/cloudprovider` (constraints on importing the providers)
+- `pkg/volumes/*`, `cmd/kubelet` (versions with and without the imported providers for in-tree volumes)
+- `pkg/controller/nodeipam`, `cmd/kube-apiserver`, `cmd/kube-controller-manager` (with and without GCE IPAM)
+
+`test/*` is punted to a future follow up, and credential providers are punted
+to [the external credential provider KEP](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1137).
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+This is only developer facing, however we will need to ensure that these tags
+stay up to date if we want this build mode to continue to work (the normal
+build mode should work by default without any additional maintenance).
+
+To ensure this continues to work we can mitigate by:
+
+- verify in CI that the cloud provider packages have boilerplate including the
+build constraints
+- build in this mode in CI to ensure that the build succeeds
+
+## Design Details
+
+### Test Plan
+
+We will add CI to ensure that we can build with this mode enabled.
+
+Additionally, we can add CI to ensure that clusters can actually be started in
+this mode.
+
+Initially, [kind](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) can be used to ensure
+that Kubernetes works without the providers, in the future we can extend this
+CI to out-of-tree providers combined with this build mode as their CI is spun up.
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+##### Alpha -> Beta Graduation
+
+Likely unnecessary, as we will eventually remove the in-tree provider code entirely for [removing-in-tree-providers](keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md).
+This is also not a user facing change.
+
+##### Beta -> GA Graduation
+
+Likely unnecessary, as we will eventually remove the in-tree provider code entirely for [removing-in-tree-providers](keps/sig-cloud-provider/20190125-removing-in-tree-providers.md).
+This is also not a user facing change.
+
+Final graduation can be considered to be when the cloud provider code is actually
+removed from the Kubernetes source tree, at which point this work will be complete.
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+N/A ?
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+N/A ?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+- original prototype [kubernetes/kubernetes#80353](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/80353)
+- original KEP PR [kubernetes/enhancements#1180](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1180)
+
+## Drawbacks [optional]
+
+This does require maintaining these tags / constraints for the providerless build,
+however in the default mode without our pseudo-tag the code will build as today
+and require zero additional maintenance to function. As in-tree providers are
+relatively stable and expected not to gain new features, this should require
+minimal effort and can be automated to a limited extent.
+
+## Alternatives [optional]
+
+We could simply wait for the in-tree providers to be removed entirely, however
+this may not provide sufficient tools to adequately prepare.
+
+There is also a risk that cloud providers would each need to duplicate this
+work to test cloud-provider free Kubernetes for their out of tree provider.
+
+We could attempt to create a branch/PR with those changes in them. 
+However the in-tree providers are not guaranteed to exit at the same time. 
+So the branch/PR might have to be kept for a long period of time. 
+In addition to being expensive the maintain such a PR/branch, it would obfuscate
+the effort. So developers would end up changing CP related code and have little
+/ no visibility that their changes were CP related.
+
+## Infrastructure Needed [optional]
+
+None?
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://github.com/kubernetes/website
+