Bug 2072134
| Summary: | Routes are not accessible within cluster from hostnet pods | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Murali Krishnasamy <murali> |
| Component: | Networking | Assignee: | Surya Seetharaman <surya> |
| Networking sub component: | ovn-kubernetes | QA Contact: | Mike Fiedler <mifiedle> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | high | ||
| Priority: | unspecified | CC: | ffernand, kkarampo, mifiedle, mmasters, rzaleski, smalleni, sreber, surya, wking |
| Version: | 4.10 | Keywords: | Regression, Upgrades |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 4.11.0 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | ovn-perfscale | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-08-10 11:03:38 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: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 2073411 | ||
|
Description
Murali Krishnasamy
2022-04-05 16:43:02 UTC
This issue appear on Azure 4.10(4.10.0-0.nightly-2022-04-05-063640) cluster as well. 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: 4.10 OVN clusters on GCP and Azure (but not SDN clusters, or AWS clusters). Updates from 4.9 to 4.10 risk regressing for those clusters, until this bug lands a 4.10 fix. What is the impact? Is it serious enough to warrant blocking edges? * example: pods with 'spec.hostNetwork: true' that try to connect to cluster Routes but which have no router pod on the same node will fail with "Connection refused". 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, e.g. by getting a router pod on the workload node, or moving the workload pod to a node with a router pod. * 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: Yes, regression introduced before 4.10 GAed via bug 2025467. 4.9 is not effected. Hey Trevor, Thanks for formatting it in a simple fashion, I've never done this before so I'll try my best to answer these questions though looks like you've already got most of them correct. So thanks a lot! :) (In reply to W. Trevor King from comment #3) > 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? 4.10 OVN-K clusters on GCP and Azure (but not SDN clusters, or AWS clusters). Updates from 4.9 to 4.10 risk regressing for those clusters, until this bug lands a 4.10 fix. > What is the impact? Is it serious enough to warrant blocking edges? pods with 'spec.hostNetwork: true' that try to connect to cluster Routes but which have no router pod on the same node will fail with "Connection refused". > How involved is remediation (even moderately serious impacts might be > acceptable if they are easy to mitigate)? Admin uses oc to fix things, e.g. by getting a router pod on the workload node, or moving the workload pod to a node with a router pod. > Is this a regression (if all previous versions were also vulnerable, > updating to the new, vulnerable version does not increase exposure)? Yes, regression introduced before 4.10 GAed via bug 2025467. 4.9 is not effected. We expect most on-cluster containers to try to access services via their Service URI instead of trying to get to the service via the Route URI. OVN and GCP-or-Azure doesn't seem to be a common configuration. Comment 4's co-location mitigation gives folks an out if they do hit this issue, and folks can also reconfigure workloads to use the Service URI [1,2]. So for now, we expect to continue to recommend 4.9 to 4.10 updates, although if new information comes in, we may revisit this decision. [1]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/dns-pod-service/#namespaces-of-services [2]: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.10/nodes/pods/nodes-pods-secrets.html#nodes-pods-secrets-certificates-creating_nodes-pods-secrets Verified on 4.11.0-0.nightly-2022-04-22-002610 1. create hostnetwork pod 2. create hello-openshift pod/svc and expose route 3. oc rsh to hostnetwork pod 4. curl the route successfully 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 (Important: OpenShift Container Platform 4.11.0 bug fix and security 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-2022:5069 |