Don't clear managedFields on live object #106195

alexzielenski · 2021-11-05T22:38:03Z

/hold
/kind bug

Fixes a bug wherein the managedFields of the liveObject are altered with calls to Update/Apply. This is problematic because there may be webhooks which expect to receive change notifications with a copy of the old object and the new object. Changes to the live object can cause the notification to be inaccurate.

This patch adds a test to make sure that the liveObject instance returned by a call to FieldManager.Apply has its managedFields metadata intact after another call to FieldManager.Apply.

Also adds two tests to check that managedFields is unaltered (order, timestamp) when a configuration is applied which should lead to a noop. (For both Apply & Update code paths).

Fixed a bug which could cause webhooks to have an incorrect copy of the old object after an Apply or Update

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-11-05T22:38:06Z

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-11-05T22:38:10Z

Welcome @alexzielenski!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kubernetes 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kubernetes has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-11-05T22:38:11Z

Hi @alexzielenski. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

apelisse · 2021-11-09T04:00:08Z

/assign

apelisse · 2021-11-09T04:03:42Z

Thank you Alex, that's great!

A quick note on an inaccuracy in the description:

This is problematic because there are instances where clients of this code may have direct references to liveObject and expect it not to change.

Clients don't have direct references, but there can be webhooks (third-party processes that can see the modifications happening on the cluster) that receives a copy of the live object and the new object. Because of this bug, they receive an incorrect version of the live object.

apelisse · 2021-11-09T04:04:01Z

/ok-to-test

apelisse · 2021-11-10T04:42:09Z

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/managedfieldsupdater.go

@@ -80,7 +81,8 @@ func (f *managedFieldsUpdater) Apply(liveObj, appliedObj runtime.Object, managed
 		managed.Times()[fieldManager] = &metav1.Time{Time: time.Now().UTC()}
 	}
 	if object == nil {
-		object = liveObj
+		object = liveObj.DeepCopyObject()
+		internal.RemoveObjectManagedFields(object)


I can't see a test that verifies that use-case? object == nil means that the object hasn't changed at all. I think if you apply the same object twice, that would happen.

This line is exercised here:

kubernetes/staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/fieldmanager_test.go

Line 1374 in 0963704

if err := f.Apply(newObj, "fieldmanager_z", false); err != nil {

I just manually verified that it is hit. I'm wondering if you know of a better way to make the connection between the test and that line's coverage explicit? Currently the test only checks that liveObj is unchanged.

You maybe need to write a more targeted unit-test, probably in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/managedfieldsupdater_test.go

we want a test that not only hits this line, but if possible, would fail without the deepcopy and dropping managed fields

Yeah, but this line is basically completely pointless because FieldManager always replaces it anyway

If we want to test that it's being reset, we need to test without the FieldManager.

I've pushed my attempt to address the above feedback in 92aa3c5 please take a look. This commit has a test which adds a node at the end of the manager pipeline, but before FieldManager, so that we can directly test if the liveObj has been copied, and its managedFields removed.

apelisse

/lgtm
/approve

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/managedfieldsupdater_test.go

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-11-11T19:50:13Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alexzielenski, apelisse

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:

~~staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/OWNERS~~ [apelisse]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

apelisse · 2021-11-11T22:22:06Z

gofmt is a legit error, I'll re-lgtm once fixed, thanks!

addresses feedback by adding a test to make sure that the manager pipeline will not return the same instance used as input, and that the output does not input managedFields

apelisse · 2021-11-11T22:33:46Z

/lgtm

alexzielenski · 2021-11-11T23:35:29Z

/hold cancel

alexzielenski · 2021-11-12T02:21:00Z

Seems like this test is not deterministic?

apelisse · 2021-11-12T03:45:49Z

/retest

apelisse · 2021-11-12T03:46:14Z

Yeah, if you have patience, you can find out who wrote/modified that test and open a ticket for the flake. cc @liggitt

liggitt · 2021-11-12T03:49:20Z

69b9f9b

liggitt · 2021-11-12T03:50:00Z

cc @jingxu97 on flake in Test_Run_OneVolumeDetachFailNodeWithReadWriteOnce

k8s-triage-robot · 2021-11-12T06:14:57Z

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

Review the full test history for this PR
Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

k8s-triage-robot · 2021-11-12T09:54:56Z

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

Review the full test history for this PR
Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

k8s-triage-robot · 2021-11-12T13:14:56Z

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

Review the full test history for this PR
Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

k8s-triage-robot · 2021-11-12T15:14:57Z

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

Review the full test history for this PR
Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot requested review from kwiesmueller and liggitt November 5, 2021 22:39

alexzielenski force-pushed the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch from 6111b38 to faa63cc Compare November 8, 2021 23:30

alexzielenski force-pushed the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch from faa63cc to ef6d440 Compare November 8, 2021 23:54

k8s-ci-robot assigned apelisse Nov 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Nov 9, 2021

apelisse reviewed Nov 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

alexzielenski force-pushed the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch from 99fd439 to 92aa3c5 Compare November 11, 2021 18:56

apelisse reviewed Nov 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/handlers/fieldmanager/managedfieldsupdater_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 11, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 11, 2021

alexzielenski force-pushed the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch from 92aa3c5 to efa31d6 Compare November 11, 2021 20:21

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 11, 2021

verify liveObj not returned by manager pipeline

68e175e

addresses feedback by adding a test to make sure that the manager pipeline will not return the same instance used as input, and that the output does not input managedFields

alexzielenski force-pushed the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch from efa31d6 to 68e175e Compare November 11, 2021 22:24

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 11, 2021

k8s-ci-robot merged commit ffe0d03 into kubernetes:master Nov 12, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.23 milestone Nov 12, 2021

alexzielenski deleted the ssa-dont-mutate-liveobj branch November 12, 2021 17:22

alexzielenski mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2022

REQUEST: New membership for alexzielenski kubernetes/org#3343

Closed

9 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Don't clear managedFields on live object #106195

Don't clear managedFields on live object #106195

alexzielenski commented Nov 5, 2021 •

edited

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 •

edited

apelisse Nov 10, 2021 •

edited

liggitt Nov 10, 2021

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 •

edited

apelisse left a comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 11, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 11, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 11, 2021

alexzielenski commented Nov 11, 2021

alexzielenski commented Nov 12, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 12, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 12, 2021

liggitt commented Nov 12, 2021

liggitt commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

Don't clear managedFields on live object #106195

Don't clear managedFields on live object #106195

Conversation

alexzielenski commented Nov 5, 2021 • edited

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 5, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 9, 2021

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apelisse Nov 10, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

liggitt Nov 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apelisse Nov 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apelisse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 11, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 11, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 11, 2021

alexzielenski commented Nov 11, 2021

alexzielenski commented Nov 12, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 12, 2021

apelisse commented Nov 12, 2021

liggitt commented Nov 12, 2021

liggitt commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

k8s-triage-robot commented Nov 12, 2021

alexzielenski commented Nov 5, 2021 •

edited

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 •

edited

apelisse Nov 10, 2021 •

edited

alexzielenski Nov 10, 2021 •

edited