Kill exec PIDs after main container exited #8162
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
release-note
openshift-ci
bot
added
dco-signoff: yes
|
@saschagrunert: The label(s) In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: kwilczynski, saschagrunert The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Before applying this patch we killed the exec PIDs right away on container stop which leads into the failing e2e test: ``` [sig-node] [NodeFeature:SidecarContainers] Containers Lifecycle should terminate sidecars simultaneously if prestop doesn't exit ``` This regression is now fixed by killing the exec PIDs after the main container as well as in the same thread. Fixes kubernetes/kubernetes#124743 Follow-up on cri-o#7937 Needs a cherry-pick since the enhancement got already backported into supported release branches. Signed-off-by: Sascha Grunert <sgrunert@redhat.com>
saschagrunert
force-pushed
the
kill-exec-pids
branch
from
fc46700
to
f03faf9
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8162 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 49.58% 49.58%
=======================================
Files 153 153
Lines 16930 16930
=======================================
+ Hits 8394 8395 +1
+ Misses 7489 7488 -1
Partials 1047 1047 |
|
/retest |
2 similar comments
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
thanks for the investigation and finding this! /lgtm |
|
/cherry-pick release-1.27 |
|
@haircommander: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.27 in a new PR and assign it to you. In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/cherry-pick release-1.28 |
|
@haircommander: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.28 in a new PR and assign it to you. In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/cherry-pick release-1.26 |
|
@kwilczynski: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.26 in a new PR and assign it to you. In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/retest |
11 similar comments
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/test ci-cgroupv2-integration |
1 similar comment
|
/test ci-cgroupv2-integration |
|
@kwilczynski: new pull request created: #8176 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@kwilczynski: new pull request created: #8177 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@haircommander: new pull request created: #8178 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@haircommander: new pull request created: #8179 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@haircommander: new pull request created: #8180 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@haircommander: new pull request created: #8181 In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
/kind regression
What this PR does / why we need it:
Before applying this patch we killed the exec PIDs right away on container stop which leads into the failing e2e test:
This regression is now fixed by killing the exec PIDs after the main container as well as in the same thread.
Needs a cherry-pick since the enhancement got already backported into supported release branches.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes kubernetes/kubernetes#124743
Special notes for your reviewer:
Follow-up on #7937
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?