Bug 1970322
Summary: | [OVN]EgressFirewall doesn't work well as expected | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | huirwang | |
Component: | Networking | Assignee: | Alexander Constantinescu <aconstan> | |
Networking sub component: | ovn-kubernetes | QA Contact: | huirwang | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | Docs Contact: | ||
Severity: | high | |||
Priority: | high | CC: | aconstan, eric.henriksson, vlaad, wking | |
Version: | 4.7 | Keywords: | Regression, UpgradeBlocker | |
Target Milestone: | --- | |||
Target Release: | 4.7.z | |||
Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
OS: | Unspecified | |||
Whiteboard: | UpdateRecommendationsBlocked | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 1970477 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-06-15 09:28:51 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
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: | 1970477 | |||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
huirwang
2021-06-10 09:06:53 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 Answers to #comment 3: > 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 Customers using egress firewall and upgrading to >= 4.7.14, irrespective of the platform used. > 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 Pods matching egress firewalls will loose connectivity to internal cluster services (can't connect to ClusterIP) > 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 No remediation, except deleting and not using egress firewall > 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 Yes, it's a regression from 4.7.13. (In reply to Alexander Constantinescu from comment #4) > Customers using egress firewall and upgrading to >= 4.7.14, irrespective of > the platform used. No need to do anything about 4.7.14, since we tombstoned that one in candidate too for bug 1967614. Tombstoning 4.7.15, which we've done for this bug, is enough to keep customers on supported releases away from this regression. Adding UpdateRecommendationsBlocked since tombstoning is basically "this was blocker worthy". [1]: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/475 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 (Moderate: OpenShift Container Platform 4.7.16 security and 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/RHSA-2021:2286 Sorry to resurrect this bug, but what do I do if I currently have this issue in Azure Red Hat OpenShift version 4.11 and 4.12? My symptoms are the same. If I have an EgressFirewall with DNS entries, accessing those sites does not work as expected. If I remove the EgressFirewall or set a CIDR block of 0.0.0.0/0 with Allow, it works fine. I have tried dnsPolicy "ClusterFirst" and "Default" on my pods with no difference. Right now it seems that either the dnsName option doesn't work at all, or my pods and the OVN pods resolve the addresses differently. The ARO clusters have not had any changes made to DNS. We have an on-premise cluter which is on 4.12 that still uses SDN and the EgressNetworkPolicy works with DNS names. |