Bug 2076809 was closed as a dup of bug 2077370. Bug 2077370 is a backport of this one. We only need UpgradeBlocker tracked in one bug in the series, and I'm picking this one as the dev-branch-most that is tied to specific pull requests. Per [1], we're asking the following questions to evaluate whether or not this bug warrants changing update recommendations 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.
Which 4.y.z to 4.y'.z' updates increase vulnerability? Which types of clusters?
* reasoning: This allows us to populate from, to, and matchingRules in conditional update recommendations [2] for "the $SOURCE_RELEASE to $TARGET_RELEASE update is not recommended for clusters like $THIS".
* 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. Check your vulnerability with oc ... or the following PromQL count (...) > 0.
* example: All customers upgrading from 4.y.z to 4.y+1.z fail. Check your vulnerability with oc adm upgrade to show your current cluster version.
What is the impact? Is it serious enough to warrant removing update recommendations?
* reasoning: This allows us to populate name and message in conditional update recommendations [2] for "...because if you update, $THESE_CONDITIONS may cause $THESE_UNFORTUNATE_SYMPTOMS".
* example: Around 2 minute disruption in edge routing for 10% of clusters. Check with oc ....
* example: Up to 90 seconds of API downtime. Check with curl ....
* example: etcd loses quorum and you have to restore from backup. Check with ssh ....
How involved is remediation?
* reasoning: This allows administrators who are already vulnerable, or who chose to waive conditional-update risks, to recover their cluster. And even moderately serious impacts might be acceptable if they are easy to mitigate.
* example: Issue resolves itself after five minutes.
* example: Admin can run a single: oc ....
* example: Admin must SSH to hosts, restore from backups, or other non standard admin activities.
Is this a regression?
* reasoning: Updating between two vulnerable releases may not increase exposure (unless rebooting during the update increases vulnerability, etc.). We only qualify update recommendations if the update increases 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.
[1]: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/master/enhancements/update/update-blocker-lifecycle/README.md#impact-statement-request
[2]: https://github.com/openshift/cincinnati-graph-data/tree/0335e56cde6b17230106f137382cbbd9aa5038ed#block-edges
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 4.10.13 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-2022:1690
Comment 7Lalatendu Mohanty
2022-05-11 20:13:18 UTC
Dropping the upgradeblocker as we are not planning to block 4.9 to 4.10 upgrade edges.