Feature Overview
Insights Advisor for OpenShift is integrated within OpenShift Cluster Manager. This has some limitations for adding new features and also for sharing codebase between RHEL Advisor and OCM Insights Advisor tab. Insights Advisor for OpenShift lacks certain features from the RHEL UI, the codebase is not 1:1 clone.
As a customer of Insights I will have same/very similar user experience with Insights for OpenShift and Insights for RHEL. The workflows will share the main concepts, the UI elements will be same and features introduced to Advisor will be automatically considered for both all supported platforms.
As OpenShift users I will still see integrations of Insights Advisor within OpenShift Cluster Manager that shows aggregated information for customer account and single cluster view on Advisor data. These integration will point to new Insights Advisor for OpenShift app that will be tightly integrated into OpenShift Cluster Manager.

• Note: The application will be reusing the codebase but will run as a separate app for OpenShift. THere's no intent to merge RHEL and OpenShift workflows into a single app.

Goals

• Q2CY21: Explore possibility to unify codebase between RHEL Advisor and OCM Insights Advisor tab. Identify architecture misalignments, create UI mockups to merge the two existing UIs.
• Q3CY21: Integrate OpenShift into Advisor codebase, standup the Insights Advisor for OpenShift application and change integration in OpenShift Cluster manager to point at the new app
• Q4CY21: Deliver missing screen of Insights Advisor for OpenShift (Systems and Recommendations views)

Requirements

• UX overview of UI elements in both UIs - Marie Doruskova
• Architecture overview/misalignments for both UIs - Jan Zeleny [~fjansen]

Benefits

• Feature parity between RHEL and OpenShift
• Adopting new features developed by RHEL Advisor team quicker
• Smaller maintenance cost

Questions to answer...

• Possible deviations between OpenShift and RHEL
• Remediation workflow different between OpenShift and RHEL

Out of Scope

• Single app that combines RHEL hosts and OpenShift clusters. Goal is still to differentiate between platforms and offer view only for a single platform.
• Direct/Supervised remediations and integration of remediations with Advanced Cluster Manager (as a Service)

Background, and strategic fit

• Insights Advisor for OpenShift follows the goal to introduce multiple applications that add value for OpenShift customers under the Insights brand. The current UI and integration of Advisor into OpenShift cluster manager doesn't follow pattern that other Insights for OpenShift applications can/will follow.

Documentation Considerations

• OCM documentation is impacted, existing workflows described in OCM documentation will persist. The placement of the application within OCM will be different.

Feature Overview

This Feature is a general "catch all" for the time being. There are a number of existing priorities from Q1 that should be aligned with existing priorities below but if not, assign to this feature as needed.

Goals

In order to get a better overall portfolio view, we'll leverage this Feature to gather work that doesn't fall into other existing priorities on this board. As this list grows, the portfolio priority grooming team will look to split out or handle appropriately.

Requirements

A list of specific needs or objectives that a Feature must deliver to satisfy the Feature. Some requirements will be flagged as MVP. If an MVP gets shifted, the feature shifts.  If a non MVP requirement slips, it does not shift the feature.

(Optional) Use Cases

< How will the user interact with this feature? >

< Which users will use this and when will they use it? >

< Is this feature used as part of current user interface? >

Out of Scope

Background, and strategic fit

< What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? >

Assumptions

< Are there assumptions being made regarding prerequisites and dependencies?>

< Are there assumptions about hardware, software or people resources?>

Customer Considerations

< Are there specific customer environments that need to be considered (such as working with existing h/w and software)?>

Documentation Considerations

< What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)? >

<What does success look like?>

< Does this feature have doc impact? Possible values are: New Content, Updates to existing content,  Release Note, or No Doc Impact?>

 <If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy. If yes, complete the following.>

• <What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?>
• <How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?>
• <What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?>
• <Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available. >
• <What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?>

Questions

Problem Alignment

The Problem

Today, all configuration for setting individual, for example, routing configuration is done via a single configuration file that only admins have access to. If an environment uses multiple tenants and each tenant, for example, has different systems that they are using to notify teams in case of an issue, then someone needs to file a request w/ an admin to add the required settings.

That can be bothersome for individual teams, since requests like that usually disappear in the backlog of an administrator. At the same time, administrators might get tons of requests that they have to look at and prioritize, which takes them away from more crucial work.

We would like to introduce a more self service approach whereas individual teams can create their own configuration for their needs w/o the administrators involvement.

Last but not least, since Monitoring is deployed as a Core service of OpenShift there are multiple restrictions that the SRE team has to apply to all OSD and ROSA clusters. One restriction is the ability for customers to use the central Alertmanager that is owned and managed by the SRE team. They can't give access to the central managed secret due to security concerns so that users can add their own routing information.

High-Level Approach

Provide a new API (based on the Operator CRD approach) as part of the Prometheus Operator that allows creating a subset of the Alertmanager configuration without touching the central Alertmanager configuration file.

Please note that we do not plan to support additional individual webhooks with this work. Customers will need to deploy their own version of the third party webhooks.

Goal & Success

• Allow users to deploy individual configurations that allow setting up Alertmanager for their needs without an administrator.

Solution Alignment

Key Capabilities

• As an OpenShift administrator, I want to control who can CRUD individual configuration so that I can make sure that any unknown third person can touch the central Alertmanager instance shipped within OpenShift Monitoring.
• As a team owner, I want to deploy a routing configuration to push notifications for alerts to my system of choice.

Key Flows

Team A wants to send all their important notifications to a specific Slack channel.

• Administrator gives permission to Team A to allow creating a new configuration CR in their individual namespace.
• Team A creates a new configuration CR.
• Team A configures what alerts should go into their Slack channel.
• Open Questions & Key Decisions (optional)
• Do we want to improve anything inside the developer console to allow configuration?

tldr: three basic claims, the rest is explanation and one example

1. We cannot improve long term maintainability solely by fixing bugs.
2. Teams should be asked to produce designs for improving maintainability/debugability.
3. Specific maintenance items (or investigation of maintenance items), should be placed into planning as peer to PM requests and explicitly prioritized against them.

While bugs are an important metric, fixing bugs is different than investing in maintainability and debugability. Investing in fixing bugs will help alleviate immediate problems, but doesn't improve the ability to address future problems. You (may) get a code base with fewer bugs, but when you add a new feature, it will still be hard to debug problems and interactions. This pushes a code base towards stagnation where it gets harder and harder to add features.

One alternative is to ask teams to produce ideas for how they would improve future maintainability and debugability instead of focusing on immediate bugs. This would produce designs that make problem determination, bug resolution, and future feature additions faster over time.

I have a concrete example of one such outcome of focusing on bugs vs quality. We have resolved many bugs about communication failures with ingress by finding problems with point-to-point network communication. We have fixed the individual bugs, but have not improved the code for future debugging. In so doing, we chase many hard to diagnose problem across the stack. The alternative is to create a point-to-point network connectivity capability. this would immediately improve bug resolution and stability (detection) for kuryr, ovs, legacy sdn, network-edge, kube-apiserver, openshift-apiserver, authentication, and console. Bug fixing does not produce the same impact.

We need more investment in our future selves. Saying, "teams should reserve this" doesn't seem to be universally effective. Perhaps an approach that directly asks for designs and impacts and then follows up by placing the items directly in planning and prioritizing against PM feature requests would give teams the confidence to invest in these areas and give broad exposure to systemic problems.

Relevant links:

• Documentation:
  • Edge Diagnostics Scratchpad, our team's internal diagnostic guide.
  • Troubleshooting OCP networking issues - The complete guide, the SDN team's diagnostic guide.
  • Linux Performance, Brendan Gregg's guide to analyzing Linux performance issues.
  • RFC: A proper feedback loop on Alerts.
  • OpenShift Router Reload Technical Overview on Access.
  • Performance Scaling HAProxy with OpenShift on Access.
  • How to collect worker metrics to troubleshoot CPU load, memory pressure and interrupt issues and networking on worker nodes in OCP 4 on Access.
  • OpenShift Performance and Scale Knowledge Base on Mojo, results from OpenShift scalability testing.
  • Scalability and performance, OCP 4.5 documentation about the router's currently known scalability limits.
  • Scaling OpenShift Container Platform HAProxy Router, OCP 3.11 documentation about the manual performance configuration that was possible in OCP 3.
  • Timing web requests with cURL and Chrome from the Cloudflare blog.
  • tcpdump advanced filters, some useful tcpdump commands.
  • OpenShift SDN - Networking, OCP 3.11 documentation on the SDN (useful background reading).
  • Ingress Operator and Controller Status Conditions, design document for improved status condition reporting.
  • Observability tips for HAProxy, a slide deck by Willy Tarreau.
  • Interesting Traces - Out of Order versus Retransmissions, analysis using tshark.
  • The PCP Book: A Complete Documentation of Performance Co-Pilot, by Yogesh Babar.
  • Debugging kernel networking bug, brief guide to using SystemTap on RHCOS.
  • Troubleshooting throughput issues from the OCP 4.5 documentation.
  • Troubleshooting OpenShift Clusters and Workloads.
  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux Network Performance Tuning Guide (PDF).
  • openshift/enhancements#289 stability: point to point network check, a diagnostic built into the kube-apiserver operator.
• Diagnostic tools:
  • dropwatch to watch for packet drops.
  • ethtool to check NIC configuration.
  • iovisor/bcc: BCC - Tools for BPF-based Linux IO analysis, networking, monitoring, and more to trace and diagnose various issues in the networking stack.
  • r-curler to gather timing information about HTTP/HTTPS connections.
  • route-monitor, to monitor routes for reachability.
  • hping(3), a programmable packet generator.
  • OpenTracing / Jaeger in OpenShift.
  • node-problem-detector, a possible integration point for new diagnostics.
  • Using SystemTap by Brendan Gregg.
  • DTrace SystemTap cheatsheet (PDF).
• Visualization and more sophisticated diagnostic tools:
  • eldadru/ksniff, kubectl plugin for tcpdump & Wireshark.
  • ironcladlou/ditm, Dan's "Dan in the Middle" tool.
  • Skydive, network diagnostic and visualization tool.
  • ali, a "load testing tool capable of performing real-time analysis" with visualization.
• Testing tools:
  • stress-ng, a general stress-loading tool (CPU, filesystem, network, ...).
  • mb, the networking benchmarking tool written and used by Jiri Mencak from our Perf+Scale team.
• Case studies:
  • BZ1763206 is an example of diagnosing DNS latency/timeouts.
  • BZ1829779 Investigation details the diagnosis of route latency.
  • BZ1845545 is an example of diagnosing misconfigured DNS for an external LB.
  • Debugging network stalls on Kubernetes, from the GitHub Blog, about diagnosing Kubernetes performance issues related to ksoftirqd.

Feature Overview

Plugin teams need a mechanism to extend the OCP console that is decoupled enough so they can deliver at the cadence of their projects and not be forced in to the OCP Console release timelines.

The OCP Console Dynamic Plugin Framework will enable all our plugin teams to do the following:

• Extend the Console
• Deliver UI code with their Operator
• Work in their own git Repo
• Deliver at their own cadence

Goals

• • Operators can deliver console plugins separate from the console image and update plugins when the operator updates.
  • The dynamic plugin API is similar to the static plugin API to ease migration.
  • Plugins can use shared console components such as list and details page components.
  • Shared components from core will be part of a well-defined plugin API.
  • Plugins can use Patternfly 4 components.
  • Cluster admins control what plugins are enabled.
  • Misbehaving plugins should not break console.
  • Existing static plugins are not affected and will continue to work as expected.

Out of Scope

• • Initially we don't plan to make this a public API. The target use is for Red Hat operators. We might reevaluate later when dynamic plugins are more mature.
  • We can't avoid breaking changes in console dependencies such as Patternfly even if we don't break the console plugin API itself. We'll need a way for plugins to declare compatibility.
  • Plugins won't be sandboxed. They will have full JavaScript access to the DOM and network. Plugins won't be enabled by default, however. A cluster admin will need to enable the plugin.
  • This proposal does not cover allowing plugins to contribute backend console endpoints.

Requirements

 
 Documentation Considerations

Questions to be addressed:

• What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)?

• Does this feature have doc impact?  

• New Content, Updates to existing content,  Release Note, or No Doc Impact

• If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy.

• What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?

• How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?

• What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?

• Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available.

• What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?

Feature Overview

• This Section:* High-Level description of the feature ie: Executive Summary

• Note: A Feature is a capability or a well defined set of functionality that delivers business value. Features can include additions or changes to existing functionality. Features can easily span multiple teams, and multiple releases.

Goals

• This Section:* Provide high-level goal statement, providing user context and expected user outcome(s) for this feature

• …

Requirements

• This Section:* A list of specific needs or objectives that a Feature must deliver to satisfy the Feature.. Some requirements will be flagged as MVP. If an MVP gets shifted, the feature shifts. If a non MVP requirement slips, it does not shift the feature.

(Optional) Use Cases

This Section: 

• Main success scenarios - high-level user stories

• Alternate flow/scenarios - high-level user stories

• ...

Questions to answer…

• ...

Out of Scope

• …

Background, and strategic fit

This Section: What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? What context can be provided to frame this feature.

Assumptions

• ...

Customer Considerations

• ...

Documentation Considerations

Questions to be addressed:

• What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)?

• Does this feature have doc impact?  

• New Content, Updates to existing content,  Release Note, or No Doc Impact

• If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy.

• What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?

• How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?

• What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?

• Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available.

• What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?

OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Feature Template descriptions and documentation.
Feature Overview

• Connect OpenShift workloads to Google services with Google Workload Identity

• Enable customers to access Google services from workloads on OpenShift clusters using Google Workload Identity (aka WIF)
  https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/workload-identity 

Goals

• Customers want to be able to manage and operate OpenShift on Google Cloud Platform with workload identity, much like they do with AWS + STS or Azure + workload identity.
• Customers want to be able to manage and operate operators and customer workloads on top of OCP on GCP with workload identity.

Requirements

• Add support to CCO for the Installation and Upgrade using both UPI and IPI methods with GCP workload identity.
• Support install and upgrades for connected and disconnected/restriction environments.
• Support the use of Operators with GCP workload identity with minimal friction.
• Support for HyperShift and non-HyperShift clusters.
• This Section:* A list of specific needs or objectives that a Feature must deliver to satisfy the Feature.. Some requirements will be flagged as MVP. If an MVP gets shifted, the feature shifts. If a non MVP requirement slips, it does not shift the feature.

(Optional) Use Cases

This Section:

• Main success scenarios - high-level user stories
• Alternate flow/scenarios - high-level user stories
• ...

Questions to answer…

• ...

Out of Scope

• …

Background, and strategic fit

This Section: What does the person writing code, testing, documenting need to know? What context can be provided to frame this feature.

Assumptions

• ...

Customer Considerations

• ...

Documentation Considerations

Questions to be addressed:

• What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)?
• Does this feature have doc impact?
• New Content, Updates to existing content, Release Note, or No Doc Impact
• If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy.
• What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?
• How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?
• What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?
• Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available.
• What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?

Feature Overview

Enable sharing ConfigMap and Secret across namespaces

Requirements

Questions to answer…

NA

Out of Scope

NA

Background, and strategic fit

Consumption of RHEL entitlements has been a challenge on OCP 4 since it moved to a cluster-based entitlement model compared to the node-based (RHEL subscription manager) entitlement mode. In order to provide a sufficiently similar experience to OCP 3, the entitlement certificates that are made available on the cluster (OCPBU-93) should be shared across namespaces in order to prevent the need for cluster admin to copy these entitlements in each namespace which leads to additional operational challenges for updating and refreshing them. 

Documentation Considerations

Questions to be addressed:
 * What educational or reference material (docs) is required to support this product feature? For users/admins? Other functions (security officers, etc)?
 * Does this feature have doc impact?
 * New Content, Updates to existing content, Release Note, or No Doc Impact
 * If unsure and no Technical Writer is available, please contact Content Strategy.
 * What concepts do customers need to understand to be successful in [action]?
 * How do we expect customers will use the feature? For what purpose(s)?
 * What reference material might a customer want/need to complete [action]?
 * Is there source material that can be used as reference for the Technical Writer in writing the content? If yes, please link if available.
 * What is the doc impact (New Content, Updates to existing content, or Release Note)?

Feature Overview (aka. Goal Summary)  

Upstream Kuberenetes is following other SIGs by moving it's intree cloud providers to an out of tree plugin format, Cloud Controller Manager, at some point in a future Kubernetes release. OpenShift needs to be ready to action this change  

Goals (aka. expected user outcomes)

Bring together all the cloud controller managers (AWS, GCP, Azure), complete testing and prepare for final GA

Requirements (aka. Acceptance Criteria):

A list of specific needs or objectives that a feature must deliver in order to be considered complete.  Be sure to include nonfunctional requirements such as security, reliability, performance, maintainability, scalability, usability, etc.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Use Cases (Optional):

Include use case diagrams, main success scenarios, alternative flow scenarios.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Questions to Answer (Optional):

Include a list of refinement / architectural questions that may need to be answered before coding can begin.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Out of Scope

High-level list of items that are out of scope.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Background

Provide any additional context is needed to frame the feature.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Customer Considerations

Provide any additional customer-specific considerations that must be made when designing and delivering the Feature.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Documentation Considerations

Provide information that needs to be considered and planned so that documentation will meet customer needs.  Initial completion during Refinement status.

Interoperability Considerations

Which other projects and versions in our portfolio does this feature impact?  What interoperability test scenarios should be factored by the layered products?  Initial completion during Refinement status.

An epic we can duplicate for each release to ensure we have a place to catch things we ought to be doing regularly but can tend to fall by the wayside.

Epic Goal

• Improve CI testing of the image registry components.

Why is this important?

• The image registry, image API and the image pruner had a lot of tests removed during transition 4.0. This may make the platform less stable and/or slow down the team.

Scenarios

1. ...

Acceptance Criteria

• CI - tests should be more stable and have broader coverage

Dependencies (internal and external)

1. ...

Previous Work (Optional):

1. …

Open questions::

1. …

Done Checklist

• CI - CI is running, tests are automated and merged.

OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.

<--- Cut-n-Paste the entire contents of this description into your new Epic --->

Epic Goal

• ...

Why is this important?

• …

Scenarios

1. ...

Acceptance Criteria

• CI - MUST be running successfully with tests automated
• Release Technical Enablement - Provide necessary release enablement details and documents.
• ...

Dependencies (internal and external)

1. ...

Previous Work (Optional):

1. …

Open questions::

1. …

Done Checklist

• CI - CI is running, tests are automated and merged.
• Release Enablement <link to Feature Enablement Presentation>
• DEV - Upstream code and tests merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Upstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Downstream build attached to advisory: <link to errata>
• QE - Test plans in Polarion: <link or reference to Polarion>
• QE - Automated tests merged: <link or reference to automated tests>
• DOC - Downstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR>

OCP/Telco Definition of Done
Epic Template descriptions and documentation.

Epic Goal

• As a CFE team, we would like to enable query logging for all Prometheus read paths
• As part of this, we would like to enable audit & query logging for Prometheus Adapter(aggregated server audit log), Prometheus(query log) and ThanosQuerier(query log)

Why is this important?

• This would help all parties(customers, app-sres, CCX, monitoring team,..) to debug an overloaded Prometheus instance.

Scenarios

1. When a customer faces a high cpu consumption in any of the Prometheus instance, they can enable audit logging in Prometheus Adapter to see which component is calling metrics API
2. When a customer faces a high cpu consumption in any of the Prometheus instance, they can enable query logging in all Prometheus instances(PM & UWM) and ThanosQuerier to see which query is frequently executed
3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982302

Acceptance Criteria

• CI - MUST be running successfully with tests automated
• Release Technical Enablement - Provide necessary release enablement details and documents.
• Prometheus Adapter audit logs must be enabled by default
• Prometheus Adapter audit logs must be preserved after each CI run

Open questions::

1. Should we enable ThanosRuler query logs?

Done Checklist

• CI - CI is running, tests are automated and merged.
• Release Enablement <link to Feature Enablement Presentation>
• DEV - Upstream code and tests merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Upstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Downstream build attached to advisory: <link to errata>
• QE - Test plans in Polarion: <link or reference to Polarion>
• QE - Automated tests merged: <link or reference to automated tests>
• DOC - Downstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR>

Description:

Openshift on RHV is composed of the following subproject the team maintains:

• installer
• cluster-api-provider-ovirt
• ovirt-csi-driver
• ovirt-csi-driver-operator
• terraform-provider-ovirt 

Each of those projects currently uses the generated oVirt API project go-ovirt.

This leads to a number of issues:

1. Duplicated code between the subprojects: Since the go-ovirt is a thin layer around the API then a lot of the code which interacts with oVirt is duplicated between the projects, which leads to all the classic duplication problems such as maintaining the project, lack of clear conventions, and so on.
2. Bad error handling and unclear errors:
   1. Since the go-ovirt is a thin layer there is a lot of error handling and checking which needs to be done, since a lot of the times it looks like a certain error should be ignored, it is never checked which could lead to unexpected situations.
   2. Since the errors which are returned from the oVirt Engine are sometimes unclear, when we return those errors to the users or log them is hard to understand what is the actual issue.
3. Lack of retries: sometimes an operation can take some time due to some condition that needs to be met, or an operation can fail due to infrastructure issues, the go-ovirt library doesn't contain any retry logic which means each client needs to implement its own retry logic which is not done at the moment and will cause more duplicated code.
4. Poor logging: The current go-ovirt library doesn't log anything, and all the logs come from the subprojects, this leads to:
   1. Inconsistent logging between the projects.
   2. Lack of logs.
5. Almost no test coverage:
   1. It's very hard to mock and write tests with go-ovirt since there are so many calls, but will be much easier to mock and write tests with go-ovirt-clent.
   2. go-ovirt only has rudimentary tests.

Then came go-ovirt-client, go-ovirt-client-log, go-ovirt-client-log-klog and k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor to the rescue!

The go-ovirt-client is a wrapper around the go-ovirt which contains all the error handling/retry logic/logs/tests needed to provide a decent user experience and an easy-to-use API to the oVirt engine.

go-ovirt-client-log is a library to unify the logging logic between the projects, it is used by go-ovirt-client and should be used by all the sub-projects.

go-ovirt-client-log-klog is a companion library to go-ovirt-client-log enabling logging via the Kubernetes "klog" facility.

k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor is a utility for monitoring the oVirt credentials secret, which will automatically update the ovirt credentials is they are changed. 

We aim to move all projects which are using the go-ovirt to use go-ovirt-client, go-ovirt-client-log and k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor instead.

Benefits for the eng:

• Possible to write unit tests.
• Easier to maintain since less code duplication - reduce the amount of code.
• Test coverage exists on the ovirt-client as well.
• No(Less) bugs regarding operations that needed a retry or polling logic.
• Solves a number of existing bugs

Benefits for the customers:

• Clearer error messages and logs.
• Fewer bugs.

Acceptance criteria:

1. All sub-projects are not using go-ovirt directly - at least 90% of the calls to go-ovirt should be migrated to go-ovirt-client.
2. All sub-projects should use the corresponding go-ovirt-client-log for logging.
3. All csi-driver and cluster provide use k8sOVirtCredentialsMonitor.
4. CI tests are green for all components.

How to test:

1. QE regression - make sure all flows are still working.
2. Green CI on all jobs.
3. Keep an eye out for log messages that might confuse customers.

T-shirt size: M

Goal:

Provide an easy and successful experience for front end developers to build and deploy their applications

Why is it important?

Currently, the front end dev experience is not positive. It's much easier for them to use other platforms. Improving the front end dev experience will enable us to gain more marketshare

Use cases:

1. Need to be able to override the npm command when using Node Builder Image
2. Need to expose target port
3. Need access to the URL to access my application

Although we provide the ability for 2 & 3 today, the current journey does not match with the mental model of the front end developer

Acceptance criteria:

1. When importing an app, I should be able to easily provide the npm build and run commands
2. When opting in to create a route, the target port should be exposed without having to open any Advanced Options
3. After importing my app, if a route is exposed, I should be able to access/copy that URL

Dependencies (External/Internal):

Design Artifacts:

Desired UX experience

• enable user to provide the *Build Command* when Node Builder image is being used
• enable user to provide the *Run Command* when Node Builder image is being used
• 

• expose the Target Port under the *Create a route to the Application *rather than inside Show advanced Routing options

• NEED TO FINALIZE HOW TO PROVIDE THE ROUTE TO EASILY COPY – Inline Notification maybe? As well as side panel?

Note:

Problem:

This epic is mainly focused on the 4.10 Release QE activities

Goal:

1. Identify the scenarios for automation
2. Segregate the test Scenarios into smoke, Regression and other user stories
a. Update the https://docs.jboss.org/display/ODC/Automation+Status+Report
3. Align with layered operator teams for updating scripts
3. Work closely with dev team for epic automation
4. Create the automation scripts using cypress
5. Implement CI for nightly builds
6. Execute scripts on sprint basis

Why is it important?

To the track the QE progress at one place in 4.10 Release Confluence page

Use cases:

1. <case>

Acceptance criteria:

1. <criteria>

Dependencies (External/Internal):

Design Artifacts:

Exploration:

Note:

Epic Goal

• Port all remaining Protractor tests to Cypress

Why is this important?

• Protractor is very hard to debug when tests fail/flake
• Once all protractor tests are ported we can remove all Protractor dependencies, scripts, and configuration files.
• Cypress has better debugging, plug-ins, and reporting tools

Acceptance Criteria

• CI - MUST be running successfully with tests automated

Dependencies (internal and external)

1. ...

Previous Work (Optional):

1. …

Open questions::

1. …

Done Checklist

• CI - CI is running, tests are automated and merged.
• Release Enablement <link to Feature Enablement Presentation>
• DEV - Upstream code and tests merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Upstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Downstream build attached to advisory: <link to errata>
• QE - Test plans in Polarion: <link or reference to Polarion>
• QE - Automated tests merged: <link or reference to automated tests>
• DOC - Downstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR>

Problem:

Complete all the 4.9 epic features automation user stories and merge it to master branch.

Goal:

4.9 epics automation completion

Why is it important?

Tech debt should be completed

Use cases:

1. <case>

Acceptance criteria:

Create the pr's for 4.9 epic user stories automation
Review it
Merge it to 4.10 master branch and 4.9 master branch

Dependencies (External/Internal):

Design Artifacts:

Exploration:

Note:

console-operator codebase contains a lot of inline manifests. Instead we should put those manifests into a `/bindata` folder, from which they will be read and then updated per purpose.

• https://github.com/openshift/console-operator/pull/550

Goal

We have several use cases where dynamic plugins need to proxy to another service on the cluster. One example is the Helm plugin. We would like to move the backend code for Helm to a separate service on the cluster, and the Helm plugin could proxy to that service for its requests. This is required to make Helm a dynamic plugin. Similarly if we want to have ACM contribute any views through dynamic plugins, we will need a way for ACM to proxy to its services (e.g., for Search).

It's possible for plugins to make requests to services exposed through routes today, but that has several problems:

1. It requires that the service be exposed outside the cluster, which is not always desired.
2. It requires the service support CORS headers for the console.
3. There is no way to specify a CA file for the route if it's not trusted by the browser.
4. Plugins will not have access to the user's access token on the client, which means that there is no simple way to handle auth.

Plugins need a way to declare in-cluster services that they need to connect to. The console backend will need to set up proxies to those services on console load. This also requires that the console operator be updated to pass the configuration to the console backend.

This work will apply only to single clusters.

Open Questions

• What happens when a multitenant isolated network policy is configured on the cluster?

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.7/networking/network_policy/multitenant-network-policy.html

• How do we (and can we?) support this for multi-cluster where console is running on a different hub cluster?
• Do we need to auth for all requests?

Acceptance Criteria

• Plugins can declare a service to proxy to in the ConsolePlugin resource
• Plugins can specify a CA cert for the service
• Console falls back to the service signing CA if none is specified
• Plugins have a way of specifying whether the user's authentication token is included in requests through the service proxy
• Dynamic plugin enhancement is updated with the implementation details
• Support for server-side events (SSE) for ACM
• Add support, or a flag, if auth is needed for each request.  

cc Ali Mobrem [~christianmvogt]

• https://github.com/openshift/console/pull/10215
• https://github.com/openshift/console-operator/pull/603

Add a Makefile rule in CMO to execute all the different rule that are used for verification and validation. Currenctly, some of them might not be at the right place, for example `check-assets` which is part of `generate` despite not being responsible of any generation. https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1151/files#r629371735

DoD:

• Add a new rule in CMO to handle verification
• Add a CI job for this rule

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1499
• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1492

New release https://github.com/kubernetes/kube-state-metrics/releases

• https://github.com/openshift/kube-state-metrics/pull/61

 As mentioned in [1], the cluster monitoring operator doesn't define the relatedObjects field in the ClusterOperator manifest which is initially deployed by CVO [2].
If the CMO pod fails to start, the must-gather might miss information from the monitoring namespace. Note that once CMO runs, it will update the initial ClusterOperator object with the proper information [3].

[1] http://mailman-int.corp.redhat.com/archives/aos-devel/2021-May/msg00139.html
[2] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/blob/master/manifests/0000_50_cluster-monitoring-operator_06-clusteroperator.yaml
[3] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/blob/a6bc9824035ceb8dbfe7c53cf0c138bfb2ec5643/pkg/client/status_reporter.go#L49-L63

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1483

Before platformStatus, the operator used to get information about AWS and GCP from the install-config config map. This code can be removed.

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-image-registry-operator/pull/739

clone of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113927

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-etcd-operator/pull/907

Description of problem:
Previously we had a bug opened for "Reduce buildah log level for default build log level [NEEDINFO]":

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996883

We suggested customer using secrets, however, customer confirmed that they are using secrets as per:
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.8/cicd/builds/creating-build-inputs.html#builds-input-secrets-configmaps_creating-build-inputs

But not able to use "--quiet" build argument since they are using openshift s2i config:

strategy:
type: Source
sourceStrategy:
from:
kind: ImageStreamTag
namespace: xxxxxxx
name: 's2i-xxxxxx-xxxxxxx:v1.0.0'

Actual results:
Under this setting, the secret as well as every other openshift secret are printed.

Expected results:
Sensitive information (ENV) should not appear in build logs

Additional info:
Maybe pass the --quiet option via the buildconfig fir s2i?

— Additional comment from taxu@redhat.com on 2022-07-01 03:42:46 UTC —

Hi Build team,

I see that the target release for this bug is 4.11.0

Please let us know where to add the LOG_LEVEL for s2i and/or passing "--quiet" options once the fix is deployed.

Kind regards,

Tao Xu

— Additional comment from aos-team-art-private@redhat.com on 2022-07-13 06:44:30 UTC —

Elliott changed bug status from MODIFIED to ON_QA.
This bug is expected to ship in the next 4.12 release.

— Additional comment from rdlugyhe@redhat.com on 2022-07-26 20:34:06 UTC —

Please approve the updated Doc Text.

— Additional comment from cdaley@redhat.com on 2022-07-26 20:49:05 UTC —

Approved

— Additional comment from jitsingh@redhat.com on 2022-07-27 04:48:18 UTC —

verified

— Additional comment from oarribas@redhat.com on 2022-08-15 12:11:23 UTC —

@Corey, I can see this BZ now verified for 4.12. Can this be backported to previous OCP versions?

— Additional comment from cdaley@redhat.com on 2022-08-15 13:57:02 UTC —

What version are you interested in getting it backported to?

— Additional comment from oarribas@redhat.com on 2022-08-15 15:46:10 UTC —

@Corey, I can see only 4.10 and 4.11 as "Full Support" in [1], so at least to those versions.

• https://github.com/openshift/builder/pull/310

Description of problem:
We are seeing customer's upgrade cannot kickoff due to the availableUpdates is null in clusterversion CR
Version-Release number of the following components:

How reproducible:
sometime
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
Please include the entire output from the last TASK line through the end of output if an error is generated

Expected results:

Additional info:

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/pull/825

As per [1], the jsonnet code for managing thanos-ruler resources should reuse the upstream kube-thanos project.

[1] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/blob/399c84dbca596b611b0c30a0d2df63a5d2b0b8cc/jsonnet/components/thanos-ruler.libsonnet#L1

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1478

Acceptance criteria:

• All tests (including e2e) pass
• No regressions are introduced
• openshift/api points to a recent commit on the master branch

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-image-registry-operator/pull/728

The CMO e2e tests create a bunch of resources. These should be cleaned up on a successful run. However:

• Some test failures leave the create resource behind, which have to be cleaned up before a re-run.
• There have been developer reports that even successful runs don't tidy up everything.

In a CI context this is rarely a problem, however running the tests locally can be made quite awkward, especially repeated runs on the same cluster.

We should tag all resources created by the e2e tests with a label (app.kubernetes.io/created-by: cmo-e2e-test).
This will allow easy cleanup by deleting all resources with that label and will allow for checking proper clean-up.

DoD:
All e2e resources get properly tagged.
It is straight forward to ensure that future code changes don't skip adding this tag.

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1397

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1379

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1338

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-autoscaler-operator/pull/226

Node Sass is deprecated. See https://github.com/sass/node-sass

• https://github.com/openshift/console/pull/10149

The static authorizer feature has landed in upstream kube-rbac-proxy. Lets use it by configuring a static authorizer for all requests that hit a /metrics endpoint.

DoD:

• Downstream kube-rbac-proxy is synced.
• All CMO operands are configured with static authorization.
• Bugzillas created for all non-monitoring components using kube-rbac-proxy for metrics authn/authz.

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1318

*USER STORY:*

 As a customer or OpenShift engineer, I want to see the user agent for anything calling from OpenShift -> vSphere to eliminate troubleshooting guesswork.

*DESCRIPTION:*

A question in #forum-vmware was raised where we identified that the user-agent may not be configured for all OpenShift components calling to vSphere API.

https://coreos.slack.com/archives/CH06KMDRV/p1627368902058800

*Required:*

Audit of OpenShift components calling to vSphere API to make sure user agent strings are set appropriately.

*Nice to have:*

How can this be prevented in the future? How can we minimize maintenance costs added by new PRs/bugs reported from this spike?

*ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:*

New PRs or bug reports for each effected component.

• https://github.com/openshift/vmware-vsphere-csi-driver-operator/pull/53
• https://github.com/openshift/vsphere-problem-detector/pull/58

Currently, Telemeter is not equipped with configurable request limit for receive endpoint (for full context see: https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1416). It is using the default limit defined in the code base, however it seems this limit might not be suitable for our usage.

As a part of this ticket, it should be:

1) Understood what is the appropriate limit for request size for our use cases

2) Make the limit configurable in Telemeter via a flag

3) Deploy the changes, initially to the staging environment, to enable our team to test it.

• https://github.com/openshift/telemeter/pull/392
• https://github.com/openshift/telemeter/pull/391

Description of problem:

OCP Upgrade failing

Version-Release number of the following components:

oc version
Client Version: 4.8.0-202108312109.p0.git.0d10c3f.assembly.stream-0d10c3f
Server Version: 4.10.13
Kubernetes Version: v1.23.5+b463d71

How reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create the following SCC (that has `with readOnlyRootFilesystem: true`):
~~~
cat << EOF | oc create -f -
allowHostDirVolumePlugin: true
allowHostIPC: false
allowHostNetwork: false
allowHostPID: false
allowHostPorts: false
allowPrivilegeEscalation: true
allowPrivilegedContainer: true
allowedCapabilities: []
apiVersion: security.openshift.io/v1
defaultAddCapabilities: []
fsGroup:
type: MustRunAs
groups: []
kind: SecurityContextConstraints
metadata:
annotations:
meta.helm.sh/release-name: azure-arc
meta.helm.sh/release-namespace: default
labels:
app.kubernetes.io/managed-by: Helm
name: kube-aad-proxy-scc
priority: null
readOnlyRootFilesystem: true
requiredDropCapabilities: []
runAsUser:
type: RunAsAny
seLinuxContext:
type: MustRunAs
supplementalGroups:
type: RunAsAny
users:

• system:serviceaccount:azure-arc:azure-arc-kube-aad-proxy-sa
  volumes:
• configMap
• hostPath
• secret
  EOF
  ~~~

2. oc adm upgrade --to=4.10.20

Actual results:

SCC kube-aad-proxy-scc, which has readOnlyRootFilesystem is injected inside the pod version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc, causing it to fail.
~~~

1. oc get po -n openshift-cluster-version
   NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
   cluster-version-operator-6b5c8ff5c8-4bmxx 1/1 Running 0 33m
   version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc 0/1 Error 0 10s
2. oc logs version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc -n openshift-cluster-version
   oc logs version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_00_namespace.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_01_adminack_configmap.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_01_admingate_configmap.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_01_clusteroperator.crd.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_01_clusterversion.crd.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_02_roles.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_03_deployment.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_90_cluster-version-operator_00_prometheusrole.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_90_cluster-version-operator_01_prometheusrolebinding.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0000_90_cluster-version-operator_02_servicemonitor.yaml': Read-only file system
   mv: cannot remove '/manifests/0001_00_cluster-version-operator_03_service.yaml': Read-only file system
   ~~~

Expected results:

Pod version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc should run fine

Additional info:

I don't know why, but SCC kube-aad-proxy-scc is injected inside pod version-4.10.20-smvt9-6vqwc:
~~~
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
annotations:
k8s.v1.cni.cncf.io/network-status: |-
[{
"name": "openshift-sdn",
"interface": "eth0",
"ips": [
"10.129.0.70"
],
"default": true,
"dns": {}
}]
k8s.v1.cni.cncf.io/networks-status: |-
[{
"name": "openshift-sdn",
"interface": "eth0",
"ips": [
"10.129.0.70"
],
"default": true,
"dns": {}
}]
openshift.io/scc: kube-aad-proxy-scc ### HERE
creationTimestamp: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
generateName: version-4.10.20-5xqtv-
labels:
controller-uid: ba707bbe-1825-4f80-89ce-f6bf2301a812
job-name: version-4.10.20-5xqtv
name: version-4.10.20-5xqtv-9gcwk
namespace: openshift-cluster-version
ownerReferences:

• apiVersion: batch/v1
  blockOwnerDeletion: true
  controller: true
  kind: Job
  name: version-4.10.20-5xqtv
  uid: ba707bbe-1825-4f80-89ce-f6bf2301a812
  resourceVersion: "40040"
  uid: 0d668d3d-7452-463f-a421-4dfee9c89c23
  spec:
  containers:
• args:
• -c
• mkdir -p /etc/cvo/updatepayloads/KsrCX7X9QbtoXkW3TkPcww && mv /manifests /etc/cvo/updatepayloads/KsrCX7X9QbtoXkW3TkPcww/manifests
  && mkdir -p /etc/cvo/updatepayloads/KsrCX7X9QbtoXkW3TkPcww && mv /release-manifests
  /etc/cvo/updatepayloads/KsrCX7X9QbtoXkW3TkPcww/release-manifests
  command:
• /bin/sh
  image: quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release@sha256:b89ada9261a1b257012469e90d7d4839d0d2f99654f5ce76394fa3f06522b600
  imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
  name: payload
  resources:
  requests:
  cpu: 10m
  ephemeral-storage: 2Mi
  memory: 50Mi
  securityContext:
  privileged: true
  readOnlyRootFilesystem: true
  terminationMessagePath: /dev/termination-log
  terminationMessagePolicy: File
  volumeMounts:
• mountPath: /etc/cvo/updatepayloads
  name: payloads
• mountPath: /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount
  name: kube-api-access-fwblb
  readOnly: true
  dnsPolicy: ClusterFirst
  enableServiceLinks: true
  imagePullSecrets:
• name: default-dockercfg-smmf4
  nodeName: ip-10-0-215-206.eu-central-1.compute.internal
  nodeSelector:
  node-role.kubernetes.io/master: ""
  preemptionPolicy: PreemptLowerPriority
  priority: 1000000000
  priorityClassName: openshift-user-critical
  restartPolicy: OnFailure
  schedulerName: default-scheduler
  securityContext:
  fsGroup: 1000030000
  seLinuxOptions:
  level: s0:c6,c0
  serviceAccount: default
  serviceAccountName: default
  terminationGracePeriodSeconds: 30
  tolerations:
• key: node-role.kubernetes.io/master
• effect: NoExecute
  key: node.kubernetes.io/not-ready
  operator: Exists
  tolerationSeconds: 300
• effect: NoExecute
  key: node.kubernetes.io/unreachable
  operator: Exists
  tolerationSeconds: 300
• effect: NoSchedule
  key: node.kubernetes.io/memory-pressure
  operator: Exists
  volumes:
• hostPath:
  path: /etc/cvo/updatepayloads
  type: ""
  name: payloads
• name: kube-api-access-fwblb
  projected:
  defaultMode: 420
  sources:
• serviceAccountToken:
  expirationSeconds: 3607
  path: token
• configMap:
  items:
• key: ca.crt
  path: ca.crt
  name: kube-root-ca.crt
• downwardAPI:
  items:
• fieldRef:
  apiVersion: v1
  fieldPath: metadata.namespace
  path: namespace
• configMap:
  items:
• key: service-ca.crt
  path: service-ca.crt
  name: openshift-service-ca.crt
  status:
  conditions:
• lastProbeTime: null
  lastTransitionTime: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
  status: "True"
  type: Initialized
• lastProbeTime: null
  lastTransitionTime: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
  message: 'containers with unready status: [payload]'
  reason: ContainersNotReady
  status: "False"
  type: Ready
• lastProbeTime: null
  lastTransitionTime: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
  message: 'containers with unready status: [payload]'
  reason: ContainersNotReady
  status: "False"
  type: ContainersReady
• lastProbeTime: null
  lastTransitionTime: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
  status: "True"
  type: PodScheduled
  containerStatuses:
• containerID: cri-o://ac6f6a5d8925620f1a2835a50fe26ea02d35e3a5c2d033015f38fde5206daf8c
  image: quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release@sha256:b89ada9261a1b257012469e90d7d4839d0d2f99654f5ce76394fa3f06522b600
  imageID: quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release@sha256:b89ada9261a1b257012469e90d7d4839d0d2f99654f5ce76394fa3f06522b600
  lastState:
  terminated:
  containerID: cri-o://fdac85e975eb00a3abd08e18061ae3673a857769ddfc87ca94a3527a8c7b83f3
  exitCode: 1
  finishedAt: "2022-07-25T16:47:42Z"
  reason: Error
  startedAt: "2022-07-25T16:47:42Z"
  name: payload
  ready: false
  restartCount: 2
  started: false
  state:
  terminated:
  containerID: cri-o://ac6f6a5d8925620f1a2835a50fe26ea02d35e3a5c2d033015f38fde5206daf8c
  exitCode: 1
  finishedAt: "2022-07-25T16:47:56Z"
  reason: Error
  startedAt: "2022-07-25T16:47:56Z"
  hostIP: 10.0.215.206
  phase: Running
  podIP: 10.129.0.70
  podIPs:
• ip: 10.129.0.70
  qosClass: Burstable
  startTime: "2022-07-25T16:47:39Z"
  ~~~

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/pull/824

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-storage-operator/pull/311

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109977

• https://github.com/openshift/vmware-vsphere-csi-driver-operator/pull/105

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of
Bug #2070318
+++

Description of problem:
In OCP VRRP deployment (using OCP cluster networking), we have an additional data interface which is configured along with the regular management interface in each control node. In some deployments, the kubernetes address 172.30.0.1:443 is nat’ed to the data management interface instead of the mgmt interface (10.40.1.4:6443 vs 10.30.1.4:6443 as we configure the boostrap node) even though the default route is set to 10.30.1.0 network. Because of that, all requests to 172.30.0.1:443 were failed. After 10-15 minutes, OCP magically fixes it and nat’ing correctly to 10.30.1.4:6443.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:

1.Provision OCP cluster using cluster networking for DNS & Load Balancer instead of external DNS & Load Balancer. Provision the host with 1 management interface and an additional interface for data network. Along with OCP manifest, add manifest to create a pod which will trigger communication with kube-apiserver.

2.Start cluster installation.

3.Check on the custom pod log in the cluster when the first 2 master nodes were installing to see GET operation to kube-apiserver timed out. Check nft table and chase the ip chains to see the that the data IP address was nat'ed to kubernetes service IP address instead of the management IP. This is not happening all the time, we have seen 50:50 chance.

Actual results:
After 10-15 minutes OCP will correct that by itself.

Expected results:
Wrong natting should not happen.

Additional info:
ClusterID: 24bbde0b-79b3-4ae6-afc5-cb694fa48895
ClusterVersion: Stable at "4.8.29"
ClusterOperators:
clusteroperator/authentication is not available (OAuthServerRouteEndpointAccessibleControllerAvailable: Get "
https://oauth-openshift.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/healthz
": context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)) because OAuthServerRouteEndpointAccessibleControllerDegraded: Get "
https://oauth-openshift.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/healthz
": context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
clusteroperator/baremetal is degraded because metal3 deployment inaccessible
clusteroperator/console is not available (RouteHealthAvailable: failed to GET route (
https://console-openshift-console.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/health
): Get "
https://console-openshift-console.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/health
": context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)) because RouteHealthDegraded: failed to GET route (
https://console-openshift-console.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/health
): Get "
https://console-openshift-console.apps.ocp-binhle-wqepch.contrail.juniper.net/health
": context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
clusteroperator/dns is progressing: DNS "default" reports Progressing=True: "Have 4 available DNS pods, want 5."
clusteroperator/ingress is degraded because The "default" ingress controller reports Degraded=True: DegradedConditions: One or more other status conditions indicate a degraded state: CanaryChecksSucceeding=False (CanaryChecksRepetitiveFailures: Canary route checks for the default ingress controller are failing)
clusteroperator/insights is degraded because Unable to report: unable to build request to connect to Insights server: Post "
https://cloud.redhat.com/api/ingress/v1/upload
": dial tcp: lookup cloud.redhat.com on 172.30.0.10:53: read udp 10.128.0.26:53697->172.30.0.10:53: i/o timeout
clusteroperator/network is progressing: DaemonSet "openshift-network-diagnostics/network-check-target" is not available (awaiting 1 nodes)

— Additional comment from
bnemec@redhat.com
on 2022-03-30 20:00:25 UTC —

This is not managed by runtimecfg, but in order to route the bug correctly I need to know which CNI plugin you're using - OpenShiftSDN or OVNKubernetes. Thanks.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-03-31 08:09:11 UTC —

Hi Ben,

We were deploying Contrail CNI with OCP. However, this issue happens at very early deployment time, right after the bootstrap node is started
and there's no SDN/CNI there yet.

— Additional comment from
bnemec@redhat.com
on 2022-03-31 15:26:23 UTC —

Okay, I'm just going to send this to the SDN team then. They'll be able to provide more useful input than I can.

— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-04 15:22:21 UTC —

Can you please provide the iptables rules causing the DNAT as well as the routes on the host? Might be easiest to get a sosreport during initial bring up during that 10-15 min when the problem occurs.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-04-05 16:45:13 UTC —

All nodes have two interfaces:

eth0: 10.30.1.0/24
eth1: 10.40.1.0/24

machineNetwork is 10.30.1.0/24
default route points to 10.30.1.1

The kubeapi service ip is 172.30.0.1:443

all Kubernetes services are supposed to be reachable via machineNetwork (10.30.1.0/24)

To make the kubeapi service ip reachable in hostnetwork, something (openshift installer?) creates a set of nat rules which translates the service ip to the real ip of the nodes which have kubeapi active.

Initially kubeapi is only active on the bootstrap node so there should be a nat rule like

172.30.0.1:443 -> 10.30.1.10:6443 (assuming that 10.30.1.10 is the bootstrap nodes' ip address in the machine network)

However, what we see is
172.30.0.1:443 -> 10.40.1.10:6443 (which is the bootstrap nodes' eth1 ip address)

The rule is configured on the controller nodes and lead to asymmetrical routing as the controller sends a packet FROM machineNetwork (10.30.1.x) to 172.30.0.1 which is then translated and forwarded to 10.40.1.10 which then tries to reply back on the 10.40.1.0 network which fails as the request came from 10.30.1.0 network.

So, we want to understand why openshift installer picks the 10.40.1.x ip address rather than the 10.30.1.x ip for the nat rule. What's the mechanism for getting the ip in case the system has multiple interfaces with ips configured.

Note: after a while (10-20 minutes) the bootstrap process resets itself and then it picks the correct ip address from the machineNetwork and things start to work.

— Additional comment from
smerrow@redhat.com
on 2022-04-13 13:55:04 UTC —

Note from Juniper regarding requested SOS report:

In reference to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2070318
that @Binh Le has been working on. The mustgather was too big to upload for this Bugzilla. Can you access this link?
https://junipernetworks-my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/sleigon_juniper_net/ETOrHMqao1tLm10Gmq9rzikB09H5OUwQWZRAuiOvx1nZpQ

• Making note private to hide partner link

— Additional comment from
smerrow@redhat.com
on 2022-04-21 12:24:33 UTC —

Can we please get an update on this BZ?

Do let us know if there is any other information needed.

— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-21 14:06:00 UTC —

Can you please provide another link to the sosreport? Looks like the link is dead.

— Additional comment from
smerrow@redhat.com
on 2022-04-21 19:01:39 UTC —

See mustgather here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16y9IfLAs7rtO-SMphbYBPgSbR4od5hcQ
— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-21 20:57:24 UTC —

Looking at the must-gather I think your iptables rules are most likely coming from the fact that kube-proxy is installed:

[trozet@fedora must-gather.local.288458111102725709]$ omg get pods -n openshift-kube-proxy
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
openshift-kube-proxy-kmm2p 2/2 Running 0 19h
openshift-kube-proxy-m2dz7 2/2 Running 0 16h
openshift-kube-proxy-s9p9g 2/2 Running 1 19h
openshift-kube-proxy-skrcv 2/2 Running 0 19h
openshift-kube-proxy-z4kjj 2/2 Running 0 19h

I'm not sure why this is installed. Is it intentional? I don't see the configuration in CNO to enable kube-proxy. Anyway the node IP detection is done via:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/f173d01c011c3574dea73a6fa3e20b0ab94531bb/cmd/kube-proxy/app/server.go#L844
Which just looks at the IP of the node. During bare metal install a VIP is chosen and used with keepalived for kubelet to have kapi access. I don't think there is any NAT rule for services until CNO comes up. So I suspect what really is happening is your node IP is changing during install, and kube-proxy is getting deployed (either intentionally or unintentionally) and that is causing the behavior you see. The node IP is chosen via the node ip configuration service:
https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/blob/da6494c26c643826f44fbc005f26e0dfd10513ae/templates/common/_base/units/nodeip-configuration.service.yaml
This service will determine the node ip via which interfaces have a default route and which one has the lowest metric. With your 2 interfaces, do they both have default routes? If so, are they using dhcp and perhaps its random which route gets installed with a lower metric?

— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-21 21:13:15 UTC —

Correction: looks like standalone kube-proxy is installed by default when the provider is not SDN, OVN, or kuryr so this looks like the correct default behavior for kube-proxy to be deployed.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-04-25 04:05:14 UTC —

Hi Tim,

You are right, kube-proxy is deployed by default and we don't change that behavior.

There is only 1 default route configured for the management interface (10.30.1.x) , we used to have a default route for the data/vrrp interface (10.40.1.x) with higher metric before. As said, we don't have the default route for the second interface any more but still encounter the issue pretty often.

— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-25 14:24:05 UTC —

Binh, can you please provide a sosreport for one of the nodes that shows this behavior? Then we can try to figure out what is going on with the interfaces and the node ip service. Thanks.

— Additional comment from
trozet@redhat.com
on 2022-04-25 16:12:04 UTC —

Actually Ben reminded me that the invalid endpoint is actually the boostrap node itself:
172.30.0.1:443 -> 10.30.1.10:6443 (assuming that 10.30.1.10 is the bootstrap nodes' ip address in the machine network)

vs
172.30.0.1:443 -> 10.40.1.10:6443 (which is the bootstrap nodes' eth1 ip address)

So maybe a sosreport off that node is necessary? I'm not as familiar with the bare metal install process, moving back to Ben.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-04-26 08:33:45 UTC —

Created attachment 1875023 [details]sosreport

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-04-26 08:34:59 UTC —

Created attachment 1875024 [details]sosreport-part2

Hi Tim,

We observe this issue when deploying clusters using OpenStack instances as our infrastructure is based on OpenStack.

I followed the steps here to collect the sosreport:
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.8/support/gathering-cluster-data.html
Got the sosreport which is 22MB which exceeds the size permitted (19MB), so I split it to 2 files (xaa and xab), if you can't join them then we will need to put the collected sosreport on a share drive like we did with the must-gather data.

Here are some notes about the cluster:

First two control nodes are below, ocp-binhle-8dvald-ctrl-3 is the bootstrap node.

[core@ocp-binhle-8dvald-ctrl-2 ~]$ oc get node
NAME STATUS ROLES AGE VERSION
ocp-binhle-8dvald-ctrl-1 Ready master 14m v1.21.8+ed4d8fd
ocp-binhle-8dvald-ctrl-2 Ready master 22m v1.21.8+ed4d8fd

We see the behavior that wrong nat'ing was done at the beginning, then corrected later:

sh-4.4# nft list table ip nat | grep 172.30.0.1
meta l4proto tcp ip daddr 172.30.0.1 tcp dport 443 counter packets 3 bytes 180 jump KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y

}
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4

}
sh-4.4#
sh-4.4#
<....after a while....>
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y

}
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-X33IBTDFOZRR6ONM
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-X33IBTDFOZRR6ONM

}
sh-4.4#

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-05-12 17:46:51 UTC —

@
trozet@redhat.com
May we have an update on the fix, or the plan for the fix? Thank you.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-05-18 21:27:45 UTC —

Created support Case 03223143.

— Additional comment from
vkochuku@redhat.com
on 2022-05-31 16:09:47 UTC —

Hello Team,

Any update on this?

Thanks,
Vinu K

— Additional comment from
smerrow@redhat.com
on 2022-05-31 17:28:54 UTC —

This issue is causing delays in Juniper's CI/CD pipeline and makes for a less than ideal user experience for deployments.

I'm getting a lot of pressure from the partner on this for an update and progress. I've had them open a case [1] to help progress.

Please let us know if there is any other data needed by Juniper or if there is anything I can do to help move this forward.

[1]
https://access.redhat.com/support/cases/#/case/03223143
— Additional comment from
vpickard@redhat.com
on 2022-06-02 22:14:23 UTC —

@
bnemec@redhat.com
Tim mentioned in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2070318#c14
that this issue appears to be at BM install time. Is this something you can help with, or do we need help from the BM install team?

— Additional comment from
bnemec@redhat.com
on 2022-06-03 18:15:17 UTC —

Sorry, I missed that this came back to me.

(In reply to Binh Le from
comment #16
)> We observe this issue when deploying clusters using OpenStack instances as
> our infrastructure is based on OpenStack.This does not match the configuration in the must-gathers provided so far, which are baremetal. Are we talking about the same environments?

I'm currently discussing this with some other internal teams because I'm unfamiliar with this type of bootstrap setup. I need to understand what the intended behavior is before we decide on a path forward.

— Additional comment from
rurena@redhat.com
on 2022-06-06 14:36:54 UTC —

(In reply to Ben Nemec from
comment #22
)> Sorry, I missed that this came back to me.
>
> (In reply to Binh Le from comment #16)
> > We observe this issue when deploying clusters using OpenStack instances as
> > our infrastructure is based on OpenStack.
>
> This does not match the configuration in the must-gathers provided so far,
> which are baremetal. Are we talking about the same environments?
>
> I'm currently discussing this with some other internal teams because I'm
> unfamiliar with this type of bootstrap setup. I need to understand what the
> intended behavior is before we decide on a path forward.I spoke to the CU they tell me that all work should be on baremetal. They were probably just testing on OSP and pointing out that they saw the same behavior.

— Additional comment from
bnemec@redhat.com
on 2022-06-06 16:19:37 UTC —

Okay, I see now that this is an assisted installer deployment. Can we get the cluster ID assigned by AI so we can take a look at the logs on our side? Thanks.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-06 16:38:56 UTC —

Here is the cluster ID, copied from the bug description:
ClusterID: 24bbde0b-79b3-4ae6-afc5-cb694fa48895

In regard to your earlier question about OpenStack & baremetal (2022-06-03 18:15:17 UTC):

We had an issue with platform validation in OpenStack earlier. Host validation was failing with the error message “Platform network settings: Platform OpenStack Compute is allowed only for Single Node OpenShift or user-managed networking.”

It's found out that there is no platform type "OpenStack" available in [
https://github.com/openshift/assisted-service/blob/master/models/platform_type.go#L29
] so we set "baremetal" as the platform type on our computes. That's the reason why you are seeing baremetal as the platform type.

Thank you

— Additional comment from
ercohen@redhat.com
on 2022-06-08 08:00:18 UTC —

Hey, first you are currect, When you set 10.30.1.0/24 as the machine network, the bootstrap process should use the IP on that subnet in the bootstrap node.

I'm trying to understand how exactly this cluster was installed.
You are using on-prem deployment of assisted-installer (podman/ACM)?
You are trying to form a cluster from OpenStack Vms?
You set the platform to Baremetal where?
Did you set user-managed-netwroking?

Some more info, when using OpenStack platform you should install the cluster with user-managed-netwroking.
And that's what the failing validation is for.

— Additional comment from
bnemec@redhat.com
on 2022-06-08 14:56:53 UTC —

Moving to the assisted-installer component for further investigation.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-09 07:37:54 UTC —

@Eran Cohen:

Please see my response inline.

You are using on-prem deployment of assisted-installer (podman/ACM)?
--> Yes, we are using on-prem deployment of assisted-installer.

You are trying to form a cluster from OpenStack Vms?
--> Yes.

You set the platform to Baremetal where?
--> It was set in the Cluster object, Platform field when we model the cluster.

Did you set user-managed-netwroking?
--> Yes, we set it to false for VRRP.

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-09 08:17:23 UTC —

@
lpbinh@gmail.com
can you please share assisted logs that you can download when cluster is failed or installed?
Will help us to see the full picture

— Additional comment from
ercohen@redhat.com
on 2022-06-09 08:23:18 UTC —

OK, as noted before when using OpenStack platform you should install the cluster with user-managed-netwroking (set to true).
Can you explain how you workaround this failing validation? “Platform network settings: Platform OpenStack Compute is allowed only for Single Node OpenShift or user-managed networking.”
What does this mean exactly? 'we set "baremetal" as the platform type on our computes'

To be honest I'm surprised that the installation was completed successfully.

@
oamizur@redhat.com
I thought installing on OpenStack VMs with baremetal platform (user-managed-networking=false) will always fail?

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-10 16:04:56 UTC —

@
itsoiref@redhat.com
: I will reproduce and collect the logs. Is that supposed to be included in the provided must-gather?
@
ercohen@redhat.com
:

• user-managed-networking set to true when we use external Load Balancer and DNS server. For VRRP we use OpenShift's internal LB and DNS server hence it's set to false, following the doc.
• As explained OpenShift returns platform type as 'none' for OpenStack:
  https://github.com/openshift/assisted-service/blob/master/models/platform_type.go#L29
  , therefore we set the platformtype as 'baremetal' in the cluster object for provisioning the cluster using OpenStack VMs.

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-13 13:08:17 UTC —

@
lpbinh@gmail.com
you will have download_logs link in UI. Those logs are not part of must-gather

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-14 18:52:02 UTC —

Created attachment 1889993 [details]cluster log per need info request - Cluster ID caa475b0-df04-4c52-8ad9-abfed1509506

Attached is the cluster log per need info request.
Cluster ID: caa475b0-df04-4c52-8ad9-abfed1509506
In this reproduction, the issue is not resolved by OpenShift itself, wrong NAT still remained and cluster deployment failed eventually

sh-4.4# nft list table ip nat | grep 172.30.0.1
meta l4proto tcp ip daddr 172.30.0.1 tcp dport 443 counter packets 2 bytes 120 jump KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SVC-NPX46M4PTMTKRN6Y

lpbinh@gmail.com

}
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4; date
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4

}
Tue Jun 14 17:40:19 UTC 2022
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4; date
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4

}
Tue Jun 14 17:59:19 UTC 2022
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4; date
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4

}
Tue Jun 14 18:17:38 UTC 2022
sh-4.4#
sh-4.4#
sh-4.4# nft list chain ip nat KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4; date
table ip nat {
chain KUBE-SEP-VZ2X7DROOLWBXBJ4

}
Tue Jun 14 18:49:28 UTC 2022
sh-4.4#

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-15 15:59:22 UTC —

@
lpbinh@gmail.com
just for the protocol, we don't support baremetal ocp on openstack that's why validation is failing

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-15 17:47:39 UTC —

@
itsoiref@redhat.com
as explained it's just a workaround on our side to make OCP work in our lab, and from my understanding on OCP perspective it will see that deployment is on baremetal only, not related to OpenStack (please correct me if I am wrong).

We have been doing thousands of OCP cluster deployments in our automation so far, if it's why validation is failing then it should be failing every time. However it only occurs occasionally when nodes have 2 interfaces, using OCP internal DNS and Load balancer, and sometime resolved by itself and sometime not.

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-19 17:00:01 UTC —

For now i can assume that this endpoint is causing the issue:
{
"apiVersion": "v1",
"kind": "Endpoints",
"metadata": {
"creationTimestamp": "2022-06-14T17:31:10Z",
"labels":

,
"name": "kubernetes",
"namespace": "default",
"resourceVersion": "265",
"uid": "d8f558be-bb68-44ac-b7c2-85ca7a0fdab3"
},
"subsets": [
{
"addresses": [

],
"ports": [
{
"name": "https",
"port": 6443,
"protocol": "TCP"
}
]
}
]
},

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-21 17:03:51 UTC —

The issue is that kube-api service advertise wrong ip but it does it cause kubelet chooses the one arbitrary and we currently have no mechanism to set kubelet ip, especially in bootstrap flow.

— Additional comment from
lpbinh@gmail.com
on 2022-06-22 16:07:29 UTC —

@
itsoiref@redhat.com
how do you perform OCP deployment in setups that have multiple interfaces if letting kubelet chooses an interface arbitrary instead of configuring a specific IP address for it to listen on? With what you describe above chance of deployment failure in system with multiple interfaces would be high.

— Additional comment from
dhellard@redhat.com
on 2022-06-24 16:32:26 UTC —

I set the Customer Escalation flag = Yes, per ACE EN-52253.
The impact is noted by the RH Account team: "Juniper is pressing and this impacts the Unica Next Project at Telefónica Spain. Unica Next is a critical project for Red Hat. We go live the 1st of July and this issue could impact the go live dates. We need clear information about the status and its possible resolution.

— Additional comment from
itsoiref@redhat.com
on 2022-06-26 07:28:44 UTC —

I have sent an image with possible fix to Juniper and waiting for their feedback, once they will confirm it works for them we will proceed with the PRs.

— Additional comment from
pratshar@redhat.com
on 2022-06-30 13:26:26 UTC —

=== In Red Hat Customer Portal Case 03223143 ===
— Comment by Prateeksha Sharma on 6/30/2022 6:56 PM —

//EMT note//

Update from our consultant Manuel Martinez Briceno -

====
on 28th June, 2022 the last feedback from Juniper Project Manager and our Partner Manager was that they are testing the fix. They didn't give an Estimate Time to finish, but we will be tracking this closely and let us know of any news.
====

Thanks & Regards,
Prateeksha Sharma
Escalation Manager | RHCSA
Global Support Services, Red Hat

• https://github.com/openshift/installer/pull/6231

The current integration of prometheus-adapter in OpenShift uses the platform Prometheus as a backend to get metrics. The problem with this design is that we are getting metrics from 2 different Prometheus instances which don't have replicated data, so two queries sent at the same time to prometheus-adapter might yield different results since the underlying promQL queries executed by prometheus-adapter might be on different Prometheus servers. The consequence is that we end up having inconsistent data across multiple autoscaling requests.

This can be easily tested by running:

$ while true ; do date; oc adm top pod -n openshift-monitoring  prometheus-k8s-0 ; echo; sleep 1 ;done 

Mon Jul 26 03:55:07 EDT 2021
NAME               CPU(cores)   MEMORY(bytes)   
prometheus-k8s-0   208m         4879Mi          

Mon Jul 26 03:55:08 EDT 2021                               
NAME               CPU(cores)   MEMORY(bytes)   
prometheus-k8s-0   246m         4877Mi          

Mon Jul 26 03:55:09 EDT 2021                               
NAME               CPU(cores)   MEMORY(bytes)   
prometheus-k8s-0   208m         4879Mi          

Mon Jul 26 03:55:10 EDT 2021
NAME               CPU(cores)   MEMORY(bytes)   
prometheus-k8s-0   246m         4877Mi          

This isn't a bug in itself since it was designed that way, but we could do better by using thanos-querier as a backend instead of the platform Prometheus because it will duplicate the metrics from both instances and serve one consistent result based on the data that it will get from the Prometheuses.

DoD:

• Use thanos-querier as a backend for prometheus-adapter

• https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator/pull/1417