[release-3.10] Fix broken update handling of path-based routes#21901
Conversation
When an existing route's path is updated to a new value not previously observed,
the new route state is correctly activated, but the previous route is not
replaced in the `hostRules` internal active list. Instead, the updated route
state (with a different path but duplicate UID) is appended to the active list.
A `hostRules` active list with more than one route instance sharing a UID and
host is an invalid internal state. The net effect is some unintended confusing
behavior which manifests when updating the route's path, including:
* Updating from path A->B->A preventing future transitions to B
* Updating from path A->B->A->B leaves an orphaned claim on the host in the
namespace, preventing the recreation of the route with either of the previously
observed paths until the router is restarted (causing the internal state to be
rebuilt)
Routes updates which are affected by this bug will be rejected with a status
like:
message: route foo already exposes foo-ns.os.example.com and is older
reason: HostAlreadyClaimed
Where `foo` refers to itself. This indicates the route update was rejected due
to a claim made by the same route being updated.
To fix the problem, ensure that when a path change is detected on the same route
the prior existing state is removed from the index, eliminating the possibility
of keeping an orphaned claim. Then add the new route as usual, which handles
acceptance/rejection normally.
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: knobunc, openshift-cherrypick-robot The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_conformance_install error looks different but suspiciously related to #21877 |
|
/retest |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
@openshift-cherrypick-robot: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
Oops, this didn't apply cleanly. Redone in #21903. |
7 participants
This is an automated cherry-pick of #21877
/assign stevekuznetsov