Bug 1871939
| Summary: | [sig-network][Feature:Router] The HAProxy router should set Forwarded headers appropriately | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Antonio Ojea <aojeagar> |
| Component: | Networking | Assignee: | Stephen Greene <sgreene> |
| Networking sub component: | router | QA Contact: | Hongan Li <hongli> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | high | ||
| Priority: | low | CC: | aos-bugs, bperkins, ccoleman, jchaloup, mfisher, mmasters, wking |
| Version: | 4.6 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 4.9.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: |
[sig-network][Feature:Router] The HAProxy router should set Forwarded headers appropriately
|
|
| Last Closed: | 2021-07-01 16:53:11 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
Antonio Ojea
2020-08-24 16:19:54 UTC
I’m adding UpcomingSprint, because I was occupied by fixing bugs with higher priority/severity, developing new features with higher priority, or developing new features to improve stability at a macro level. I will revisit this bug next sprint. Occuring in 4.5 as well: https://search.ci.openshift.org/?maxAge=168h&context=1&type=bug%2Bjunit&name=4.5&maxMatches=5&maxBytes=20971520&groupBy=job&search=%5C%5Bsig-network%5C%5D%5C%5BFeature%3ARouter%5C%5D+The+HAProxy+router+should+set+Forwarded+headers+appropriately Don't see the original error message for 4.7 so posting one for 4.5: ``` fail [github.com/openshift/origin/test/extended/router/headers.go:102]: Unexpected error: <*errors.errorString | 0xc0028c8f30>: { s: "host command failed: error running /usr/bin/kubectl --server=https://api.ci-op-jht456ms-daaf9.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.openshift.com:6443 --kubeconfig=/var/run/secrets/ci.openshift.io/multi-stage/kubeconfig exec --namespace=e2e-test-router-headers-7cn7d execpod -- /bin/sh -x -c \n\t\tset -e\n\t\tSTOP=$(($(date '+%s') + 180))\n\t\twhile [ $(date '+%s') -lt $STOP ]; do\n\t\t\trc=0\n\t\t\tcode=$( curl -k -s -m 5 -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}\\n' --header 'Host: 172.30.125.224' \"http://172.30.125.224:1936/healthz\" ) || rc=$?\n\t\t\tif [[ \"${rc:-0}\" -eq 0 ]]; then\n\t\t\t\techo $code\n\t\t\t\tif [[ $code -eq 200 ]]; then\n\t\t\t\t\texit 0\n\t\t\t\tfi\n\t\t\t\tif [[ $code -ne 503 ]]; then\n\t\t\t\t\texit 1\n\t\t\t\tfi\n\t\t\telse\n\t\t\t\techo \"error ${rc}\" 1>&2\n\t\t\tfi\n\t\t\tsleep 1\n\t\tdone\n\t\t:\nCommand stdout:\n\nstderr:\nUnable to connect to the server: dial tcp 35.196.249.78:6443: i/o timeout\n\nerror:\nexit status 1\n", } host command failed: error running /usr/bin/kubectl --server=https://api.ci-op-jht456ms-daaf9.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.openshift.com:6443 --kubeconfig=/var/run/secrets/ci.openshift.io/multi-stage/kubeconfig exec --namespace=e2e-test-router-headers-7cn7d execpod -- /bin/sh -x -c set -e STOP=$(($(date '+%s') + 180)) while [ $(date '+%s') -lt $STOP ]; do rc=0 code=$( curl -k -s -m 5 -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}\n' --header 'Host: 172.30.125.224' "http://172.30.125.224:1936/healthz" ) || rc=$? if [[ "${rc:-0}" -eq 0 ]]; then echo $code if [[ $code -eq 200 ]]; then exit 0 fi if [[ $code -ne 503 ]]; then exit 1 fi else echo "error ${rc}" 1>&2 fi sleep 1 done : Command stdout: stderr: Unable to connect to the server: dial tcp 35.196.249.78:6443: i/o timeout error: exit status 1 occurred ``` Feel free to ignore it if it's not relevant. The original two causes of this failure no longer happen. The new occurrence is a different issue than what is described in the most recent comment, that is addressed by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921857 ~50% of GCP runs this is failing (also looks like a lot of azure runs, maybe 25-30%). Is this test assuming something that only works on AWS? Raising to high because this is blocking a lot of CI runs and is happening in 4.8 (In reply to Clayton Coleman from comment #14) > ~50% of GCP runs this is failing (also looks like a lot of azure runs, maybe > 25-30%). > > Is this test assuming something that only works on AWS? > > Raising to high because this is blocking a lot of CI runs and is happening > in 4.8 Recent spike in failures is being tracked via https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971808 Some specific instances of this issue have been resolved (bug 1971808, bug 1921857), and the general issue is being tracked in bug 1802311, so I am marking this report as a duplicate of bug 1802311. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1802311 *** |