Bug 1933075

Summary:	machine-config-operator fails when writing zero-length systemd dropins
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Ben Howard <behoward>
Component:	Machine Config Operator	Assignee:	Ben Howard <behoward>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Michael Nguyen <mnguyen>
Severity:	urgent	Docs Contact:
Priority:	urgent
Version:	4.6.z	CC:	ccoleman, esimard, fabian, fdeutsch, gpei, jerzhang, jhou, jima, knarra, lmohanty, mgugino, mkrejci, mnguyen, pmuller, tsze, weinliu, wking, wsun, yanyang, yunjiang
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Regression, TestBlocker
Target Release:	4.6.z
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	TechnicalReleaseBlocker
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1920027	Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-03-16 23:22:18 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1920027
Bug Blocks:	1915235, 1933077

Comment 3 Lalatendu Mohanty 2021-03-09 15:23:58 UTC

We're asking the following questions to evaluate whether or not this bug warrants blocking an upgrade edge from either the previous X.Y or X.Y.Z. The ultimate goal is to avoid delivering an update which introduces new risk or reduces cluster functionality in any way. Sample answers are provided to give more context and the UpgradeBlocker flag has been added to this bug. It will be removed if the assessment indicates that this should not block upgrade edges. The expectation is that the assignee answers these questions.

Who is impacted?  If we have to block upgrade edges based on this issue, which edges would need blocking?
  example: Customers upgrading from 4.y.Z to 4.y+1.z running on GCP with thousands of namespaces, approximately 5% of the subscribed fleet
  example: All customers upgrading from 4.y.z to 4.y+1.z fail approximately 10% of the time
What is the impact?  Is it serious enough to warrant blocking edges?
  example: Up to 2 minute disruption in edge routing
  example: Up to 90seconds of API downtime
  example: etcd loses quorum and you have to restore from backup
How involved is remediation (even moderately serious impacts might be acceptable if they are easy to mitigate)?
  example: Issue resolves itself after five minutes
  example: Admin uses oc to fix things
  example: Admin must SSH to hosts, restore from backups, or other non standard admin activities
Is this a regression (if all previous versions were also vulnerable, updating to the new, vulnerable version does not increase exposure)?
  example: No, it’s always been like this we just never noticed
  example: Yes, from 4.y.z to 4.y+1.z Or 4.y.z to 4.y.z+1

Comment 4 Yu Qi Zhang 2021-03-09 15:56:55 UTC

I believe this is mostly a dependency backport. The code itself shouldn't be impactful for customers. No edge blocking needed.

Comment 5 Lalatendu Mohanty 2021-03-09 16:23:01 UTC

Thanks, removing the UpgradeBlocker keyword

Comment 6 Michael Nguyen 2021-03-09 22:18:20 UTC

upgrade from quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release:4.6.16-x86_64 to registry.ci.openshift.org/ocp/release:4.6.0-0.nightly-2021-03-06-050044 succeeded with no machine config operator degrade issues.

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2021-03-16 23:22:18 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (OpenShift Container Platform 4.6.21 bug fix update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:0753