cluster/gce: add webhook to replace PersistentVolumeLabel admission controller #121628
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-priority
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/provider/gcp
andrewsykim
force-pushed
the
cloud-pvl-admission
branch
from
138966a to
7b3be87
Compare
andrewsykim
force-pushed
the
cloud-pvl-admission
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0978be0 to
988c2aa
Compare
andrewsykim
changed the title
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: c0c8c293da3c112f9fe9d7f0cba1d9979cbfea03
|
|
/retest |
…ontroller Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <andrewsy@google.com>
andrewsykim
force-pushed
the
cloud-pvl-admission
branch
from
988c2aa to
e411fd3
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
| admissionReviewVersions: ["v1"] | ||
| sideEffects: None | ||
| timeoutSeconds: 5 | ||
| failurePolicy: Fail |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this worth failing on? This means that if there is a problem with the webhook, no PVs can be created. Slightly worries about bootstrapping type issues (webhook needs a PV, PV needs the webhook). More just a priority. This was intended for an edge case. Do we want to block the normal case over concerns about the edge case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fail seems appropriate here because we need strong guarentees that the topology labels are applied (at least in comparison to the current PersistentVolumeLabel admission controller). I will follow up and change this to Ignore if it causes too many issues in tests
| "image": "gcr.io/k8s-staging-cloud-pv-labeler/cloud-pv-admission-labeler:v0.3.0", | ||
| "resources": { | ||
| "requests": { | ||
| "cpu": "10m" |
| @@ -1357,6 +1361,9 @@ KUBE_POD_LOG_READERS_GROUP: 2007 | |||
| KONNECTIVITY_SERVER_RUNASUSER: 2008 | |||
| KONNECTIVITY_SERVER_RUNASGROUP: 2008 | |||
| KONNECTIVITY_SERVER_SOCKET_WRITER_GROUP: 2008 | |||
| CLOUD_CONTROLLER_MANAGER_RUNASUSER: 2009 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering why this is missing from https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp/blame/992c1c33f1be3f5204934e02b8488d117b50dd1c/cluster/gce/util.sh#L1337 ?
|
/lgtm A little concerned about the failure policy but we can always fix that later. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 098b979eb45fdce0155dbd62ae030287cb86ae5e
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: andrewsykim, cheftako 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
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Update scripts in cluster/ to replace the deprecated PersistentVolumeLabel admission controller with an admission webhook. The webhook is based on https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cloud-pv-admission-labeler, which is a webhook server that uses the same logic by calling GetVolumeLabels.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: