[release-4.18] OCPBUGS-48710: DownStream Merge Sync from 4.19 [02-13-2025] #2470
Conversation
|
@openshift-cherrypick-robot: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-49598 has been cloned as Jira Issue OCPBUGS-51143. Will retitle bug to link to clone. Jira Issue OCPBUGS-49393 has been cloned as Jira Issue OCPBUGS-51144. Will retitle bug to link to clone. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/severity-critical
|
@openshift-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-51143, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-51144, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/hold |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/retitle [release-4.18] OCPBUGS-48710: DownStream Merge Sync from 4.19 [02-13-2025] |
openshift-ci
bot
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-bug
|
@openshift-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-48710, which is valid. 7 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
The document is refactored to meet the ovn-org feature template [0]. [0] https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/blob/master/docs/features/template.md Signed-off-by: Ram Lavi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ram Lavi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: arkadeepsen <[email protected]>
Fixes a null pointer exception when network policy port has no protocol. If the protocol is missing in the network policy port definition, it should be assumed to be TCP. Signed-off-by: Tim Rozet <[email protected]>
Add a few more missing `Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred())` to nftables checks so they'll actually fail if the rules are wrong. Signed-off-by: Dan Winship <[email protected]>
One of UDN local gateway masquerade rules was using an IP/length (eg. 169.254.0.2/29) rather than subnet/length (169.254.0.0/29). This is ambiguous and we shouldn't depend on iptables interpreting it the way we wanted. Also, the corresponding unit test ended up being sort of silly because it wasn't overriding the masquerade subnet to be "UDN-sized", so the rules it output failed to actually distinguish the UDN and non-UDN parts of the masquerade subnet. Fix that too. Signed-off-by: Dan Winship <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joel Takvorian <[email protected]>
We want to use "k8s.io/api/core/v1.ObjectReference" for event reporting. At the same time "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/apis/core.ObjectReference" exists. The fun part is that in default_node_network_controller.go we import kapi "k8s.io/api/core/v1" and in udn_isolation.go v1 "k8s.io/api/core/v1" kapi "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/apis/core" so when the tested code was moved to another file, it started using the wrong type. Signed-off-by: Nadia Pinaeva <[email protected]>
I am trying to debug an issue where this error occurs and I dont easily know what pod UIDs that were compared. Signed-off-by: Martin Kennelly <[email protected]>
…t restarted. Signed-off-by: Dan Winship <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dan Winship <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Martin Kennelly <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Nadia Pinaeva <[email protected]>
Fix issue introduced in 3275d49 $ make lint ... level=info msg="[linters_context/goanalysis] analyzers took 4m3.270244378s with top 10 stages: buildir: 2m29.130860339s, nilness: 5.955006101s, printf: 3.859331341s, fact_deprecated: 3.799388364s, ctrlflow: 3.482855272s, inspect: 3.316943625s, fact_purity: 2.391957936s, S1038: 2.121120295s, gofmt: 2.089813745s, unused: 2.075213702s" pkg/node/base_node_network_controller_dpu.go:1: : # github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node [github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes/go-controller/pkg/node.test] pkg/node/udn_isolation_test.go:364:52: not enough arguments in call to NewUDNHostIsolationManager have (bool, bool, "k8s.io/client-go/informers/core/v1".PodInformer) want (bool, bool, "k8s.io/client-go/informers/core/v1".PodInformer, string, record.EventRecorder) (typecheck) package node Signed-off-by: Flavio Fernandes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Aniket Bhat <[email protected]>
Currently, IPV6 deployment of Kind with RUN_IN_CONTAINER flag [1] fails,
the root cause seems to be setting of IPV4 address of master node in
the server field in Kubeconfig [2] instead of the IPV6 address.
This PR sets the server IP address in Kubeconfig considering IP family type.
[1] KIND_IPV4_SUPPORT=false KIND_IPV6_SUPPORT=true
RUN_IN_CONTAINER=true ./contrib/kind.sh
[2]
https://github.com/ovn-kubernetes/ovn-kubernetes/blob/master/contrib/kind.sh#L1078
Signed-off-by: Yossi Boaron <[email protected]>
During UDN we added syncEgressIPMarkAllocator that causes an extra patch operation that causes an extra event. So update the test to reflect that. Signed-off-by: Surya Seetharaman <[email protected]>
openshift-cherrypick-robot
force-pushed
the
cherry-pick-2459-to-release-4.18
branch
from
86b4eb7 to
ee20311
Compare
|
/retest |
|
@openshift-cherrypick-robot: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/retest |
|
@jluhrsen: trigger 4 job(s) of type blocking for the ci release of OCP 4.18
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/693cee10-f470-11ef-8df3-4aa9ab84d6ec-0 trigger 13 job(s) of type blocking for the nightly release of OCP 4.18
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/693cee10-f470-11ef-8df3-4aa9ab84d6ec-1 |
|
4.18 GA'ed /hold cancel |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/label backport-risk-assessed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
backport-risk-assessed
openshift-ci
bot
assigned anuragthehatter, asood-rh, huiran0826, jechen0648, mffiedler, qiowang721, rbbratta, weliang1 and yingwang-0320
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
@trozet , I feel like we should always get payload jobs on branches that have z release possibility though. no? |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: npinaeva, openshift-cherrypick-robot, trozet 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 |
This is an automated cherry-pick of #2459
/assign jluhrsen