Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Do not fail volume attach or publish operation at kubelet if target path directory already exists on the node. #119735

Merged

Conversation

akankshapanse
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR addresses issue reported at #119401. This allows kubelet to ignore if the staging target directory or parent publish directory already exists and let corresponding CSI driver handle the situation.

Testing done:
Reproduced original issue seen in the bug mentioned above and after replacing kubelet with this fix, control was successfully passed to CSI driver, instead of failing the volume attach at kubelet level.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

#119401

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Do not fail volume attach or publish operation at kubelet if target path directory already exists on the node.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. labels Aug 2, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.28 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.28.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Wed Aug 2 10:20:21 UTC 2023.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 2, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @akankshapanse!

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 k8s-ci-robot added the needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. label Aug 2, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Aug 2, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @akankshapanse. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. sig/storage Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Storage. and removed do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 2, 2023
@xing-yang
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot 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 Aug 2, 2023
@xing-yang
Copy link
Contributor

/assign @msau42 @jsafrane @andyzhangx

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 3, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 11, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 20, 2023
Copy link
Member

@jsafrane jsafrane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am sorry if I confused you with my previous comments. I wanted just a function that checks for windows mount and then calls os.MkdirAll, just like your original code.

Or do I miss anything?

Comment on lines 132 to 135
// For windows NTFS, check if the path is symlink instead of directory.
if err1 == nil && (dir.IsDir() || (dir.Mode()&os.ModeSymlink != 0)) {
return nil
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was already checked above.

}
return &os.PathError{Op: "mkdir", Path: path, Err: syscall.ENOTDIR}
}
// Slow path: make sure parent exists and then call Mkdir for path.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should be safe safe to call os.MkdirAll here, no need to reimplement it here.

@akankshapanse
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am sorry if I confused you with my previous comments. I wanted just a function that checks for windows mount and then calls os.MkdirAll, just like your original code.

Or do I miss anything?

@jsafrane do you mean the following?
we should continue to check if path exists (using os.Lstat() as original fix in this PR had proposed) and ensure the path is dir for linux (os.IsDir()) and symlink for windows (dir.Mode()&os.ModeSymlink != 0). If not, call os.MkdirAll() as usual.

@jsafrane
Copy link
Member

jsafrane commented Oct 2, 2023

@jsafrane do you mean the following? we should continue to check if path exists (using os.Lstat() as original fix in this PR had proposed) and ensure the path is dir for linux (os.IsDir()) and symlink for windows (dir.Mode()&os.ModeSymlink != 0). If not, call os.MkdirAll() as usual.

Yes. Just like the original fix, but in a common function.

@akankshapanse
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jsafrane do you mean the following? we should continue to check if path exists (using os.Lstat() as original fix in this PR had proposed) and ensure the path is dir for linux (os.IsDir()) and symlink for windows (dir.Mode()&os.ModeSymlink != 0). If not, call os.MkdirAll() as usual.

Yes. Just like the original fix, but in a common function.

Updated the diff as per your suggestion.

@jsafrane
Copy link
Member

jsafrane commented Oct 3, 2023

Thanks for the patience!

/lgtm
/approve
/priority important-soon
/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 3, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: c67ff8c273fc0e9db0fc15250b6a8a9490d8a876

@msau42
Copy link
Member

msau42 commented Oct 6, 2023

/assign @dims

@dims
Copy link
Member

dims commented Oct 6, 2023

/approve
/lgtm

thanks @akankshapanse !

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: akankshapanse, dims, jsafrane

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 6, 2023
@pacoxu
Copy link
Member

pacoxu commented Oct 8, 2023

/retest-required

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit c486a08 into kubernetes:master Oct 8, 2023
18 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.29 milestone Oct 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/storage Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Storage. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants