Tested openshift/machine-config-operator/pull/3183 with 4.9.0-0.ci.test-2022-06-10-143517-ci-ln-c23tgs2-latest and nodes function after reboot.
Jun 13 01:25:01 master-0-2 configure-ovs.sh: + ip route show
Jun 13 01:25:01 master-0-2 configure-ovs.sh: default via 192.168.123.1 dev br-ex proto dhcp metric 49
Jun 13 01:25:01 master-0-2 configure-ovs.sh: 172.22.0.0/24 dev enp4s0 proto kernel scope link src 172.22.0.88 metric 100
Jun 13 01:25:01 master-0-2 configure-ovs.sh: 192.168.123.0/24 dev br-ex proto kernel scope link src 192.168.123.134 metric 49
Jun 13 01:25:01 master-0-2 configure-ovs.sh: + ip -6 route show
Created attachment 1889267 [details]
ovs-configuration logs, success after reboot
*** Bug 2097315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Does this bug anywayimpact upgrades from 4.10 to 4.11?
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 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 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.
For a clearer process, I am going to be closing this BZ.
PR 3160 got shipped in 4.9.38. This introduced a 4.9 specific problem with networking being broken after a reboot.
PR 3183 will be shipped in 4.9.39 unless it is tombstoned. This fixed the first problem, but broke static IP configuration.
This finalñ problem is reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095264, where we will continue the work on it.
I will move the impact statement there as well.
Update graph-data response is being discussed in bug 2098099, e.g. here . So dropping it from this bug.