-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 486
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
stability: iptables analysis #268
Closed
deads2k
wants to merge
1
commit into
openshift:master
from
deads2k:stability-iptables-dump-and-analysis
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
203 changes: 203 additions & 0 deletions
203
enhancements/kube-apiserver/stability-iptables-analysis.md
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ | ||
--- | ||
title: stability-iptables-analysis | ||
authors: | ||
- "@janedoe" | ||
reviewers: | ||
- TBD | ||
- "@alicedoe" | ||
approvers: | ||
- TBD | ||
- "@oscardoe" | ||
creation-date: yyyy-mm-dd | ||
last-updated: yyyy-mm-dd | ||
status: provisional|implementable|implemented|deferred|rejected|withdrawn|replaced | ||
see-also: | ||
- "/enhancements/this-other-neat-thing.md" | ||
replaces: | ||
- "/enhancements/that-less-than-great-idea.md" | ||
superseded-by: | ||
- "/enhancements/our-past-effort.md" | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# Stability: iptables Analysis | ||
|
||
## Release Signoff Checklist | ||
|
||
- [ ] Enhancement is `implementable` | ||
- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements | ||
- [ ] Test plan is defined | ||
- [ ] Graduation criteria for dev preview, tech preview, GA | ||
- [ ] User-facing documentation is created in [openshift-docs](https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/) | ||
|
||
## Open Questions [optional] | ||
|
||
This is where to call out areas of the design that require closure before deciding | ||
to implement the design. For instance, | ||
> 1. This requires exposing previously private resources which contain sensitive | ||
information. Can we do this? | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
In 4.x, one point of fragility has been missing iptables rules. | ||
There have been at least two potential causes found, but we still don't have an automatic way to figure out how many clusters | ||
and services are afflicted. | ||
Dan Mace found a way to find analyze iptables dumps to see if services and/or endpoints are missing. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
If iptables rules are missing, the cluster can behave unpredictably. | ||
|
||
### Goals | ||
|
||
1. Analyze iptables rules for missing services and endpoints. | ||
2. Produce a metric and alert for latency in iptables rules on masters. | ||
|
||
### Non-Goals | ||
|
||
1. Figure out why iptables rules are missing. | ||
2. Analyze iptables rules on all nodes. This is too large. | ||
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
1. Run a daemonset on every master that records iptables rules into a configmap on some reasonable cadence and expiry policy. | ||
2. Write an analyzer binary that checks to see how far out of date they are. This involves... | ||
1. Did the state ever exist? You can compare resourceversions to determine if the state never existed (in some cases). | ||
2. How latent are the iptables? Based on bookmarking of when endpoints and services were created/updated, | ||
you can determine roughly how latent the iptables rules are. | ||
3. Write summaries into some resource which you can then report metrics and degraded conditions against. | ||
|
||
### User Stories [optional] | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It seems like the "user stories" for all of these enhancements should be links to the sorts of bugs that the enhancement is supposed to help debug/prevent. Then we can compare the Proposal against what the actual problem was to see if it would really have helped. |
||
|
||
Detail the things that people will be able to do if this is implemented. | ||
Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of | ||
the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting | ||
bogged down. | ||
|
||
#### Story 1 | ||
|
||
#### Story 2 | ||
|
||
### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional] | ||
|
||
What are the caveats to the implementation? What are some important details that | ||
didn't come across above. Go in to as much detail as necessary here. This might | ||
be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate. | ||
|
||
### Risks and Mitigations | ||
|
||
What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. For | ||
example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger OKD | ||
ecosystem. | ||
|
||
How will security be reviewed and by whom? How will UX be reviewed and by whom? | ||
|
||
Consider including folks that also work outside your immediate sub-project. | ||
|
||
## Design Details | ||
|
||
### Test Plan | ||
|
||
**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.* | ||
|
||
Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement: | ||
- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests? | ||
- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components? | ||
|
||
No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything | ||
that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly | ||
challenging to test should be called out. | ||
|
||
All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage | ||
expectations). | ||
|
||
### Graduation Criteria | ||
|
||
**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.* | ||
|
||
Define graduation milestones. | ||
|
||
These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial proposal | ||
should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to | ||
determine graduation. | ||
|
||
Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this | ||
enhancement: | ||
- Maturity levels - `Dev Preview`, `Tech Preview`, `GA` | ||
- Deprecation | ||
|
||
Clearly define what graduation means. | ||
|
||
#### Examples | ||
|
||
These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned | ||
[maturity levels][maturity-levels]. | ||
|
||
##### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview | ||
|
||
- Ability to utilize the enhancement end to end | ||
- End user documentation, relative API stability | ||
- Sufficient test coverage | ||
- Gather feedback from users rather than just developers | ||
|
||
##### Tech Preview -> GA | ||
|
||
- More testing (upgrade, downgrade, scale) | ||
- Sufficient time for feedback | ||
- Available by default | ||
|
||
**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include | ||
end to end tests.** | ||
|
||
##### Removing a deprecated feature | ||
|
||
- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing feature | ||
- Deprecate the feature | ||
|
||
### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy | ||
|
||
If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure this | ||
is in the test plan. | ||
|
||
Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this | ||
enhancement: | ||
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing | ||
cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior? | ||
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing | ||
cluster required to make on upgrade in order to make use of the enhancement? | ||
|
||
### Version Skew Strategy | ||
|
||
How will the component handle version skew with other components? | ||
What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan. | ||
|
||
Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this | ||
enhancement: | ||
- During an upgrade, we will always have skew among components, how will this impact your work? | ||
- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and | ||
in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave | ||
when this feature is used? | ||
- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, CRI | ||
or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet. | ||
|
||
## Implementation History | ||
|
||
Major milestones in the life cycle of a proposal should be tracked in `Implementation | ||
History`. | ||
|
||
## Drawbacks | ||
|
||
The idea is to find the best form of an argument why this enhancement should _not_ be implemented. | ||
|
||
## Alternatives | ||
|
||
Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to | ||
highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed | ||
by an enhancement. | ||
|
||
## Infrastructure Needed [optional] | ||
|
||
Use this section if you need things from the project. Examples include a new | ||
subproject, repos requested, github details, and/or testing infrastructure. | ||
|
||
Listing these here allows the community to get the process for these resources | ||
started right away. |
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to assume a world in which the monitoring daemonset is 100% reliably able to generate the expected current iptables state, but kube-proxy is not...