Bug 2009092

Summary: Kubelet logging "Pod attempted illegal phase transition"
Product: OpenShift Container Platform Reporter: Elana Hashman <ehashman>
Component: NodeAssignee: Elana Hashman <ehashman>
Node sub component: Kubelet QA Contact: Weinan Liu <weinliu>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE Docs Contact:
Severity: medium    
Priority: medium CC: aos-bugs, ccoleman, ehashman, rphillips, wking
Version: 4.9   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-10-13 14:32:03 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:

Description Elana Hashman 2021-09-29 23:05:29 UTC
Description of problem:

In a couple of 4.9 bugs, we've seen instances where the kubelet is logging that a pod attempted an illegal phase transition, e.g.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998193#c16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997478#c25

I suspect this may be related to the 4.9 pod lifecycle refactor, as this doesn't appear to have been present in earlier versions.

This log message is invoked here: https://github.com/openshift/kubernetes/blob/f181eb2582e1649676395f25710c14b427b3369c/pkg/kubelet/kubelet_pods.go#L1480-L1484

It's only possible when a terminal pod (failed or succeeded) attempts a phase transition.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

OpenShift 4.9

How reproducible:

Unclear

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Elana Hashman 2021-10-05 22:26:00 UTC
We saw that some Pods were returning to Running or Pending in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/105358

Let's see if openshift/kubernetes#999 fixes this.

Comment 2 Ryan Phillips 2021-10-13 14:32:03 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2011513 ***