Bug 2027485
| Summary: | [4.9z] AddressManager should not call sync() from ErrorCallback | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | ffernand <ffernand> | |
| Component: | Networking | Assignee: | ffernand <ffernand> | |
| Networking sub component: | ovn-kubernetes | QA Contact: | Anurag saxena <anusaxen> | |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | Docs Contact: | ||
| Severity: | high | |||
| Priority: | urgent | CC: | lmohanty, wking | |
| Version: | 4.9 | Keywords: | Triaged | |
| Target Milestone: | --- | |||
| Target Release: | 4.9.z | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Unspecified | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 2027487 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-12-13 12:06:24 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: | 2009873 | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 2022042, 2027487 | |||
|
Description
ffernand
2021-11-29 18:56:06 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
ImpactStatementRequested label has been added to this bug. When responding, please remove ImpactStatementRequested and set the ImpactStatementProposed label. 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 90 seconds 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 has 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
(In reply to Lalatendu Mohanty from comment #7) > 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 > > ImpactStatementRequested label has been added to this bug. When responding, > please remove ImpactStatementRequested and set the ImpactStatementProposed > label. 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? I do not think this bz should block upgrade edges. It is just a fix for the test code. > > 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 90 seconds 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 has 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 The backport story for bug 2009873 is a bit complicated. I'll ask for an overall summary / impact-statement over there. 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 4.9.11 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-2021:5003 |