Fix issue with ipset or iptables chain removal during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions#6707
Merged
Merged
Conversation
hongliangl
force-pushed
the
20241001-fix-nnp
branch
from
8f58f0f to
569fa36
Compare
hongliangl
changed the title
hongliangl
added
action/backport
Contributor
|
@hongliangl please fix the commit title / PR title (it's not a correct sentence), and add a commit message that explains what the issue was and what your change is doing. |
Contributor
Author
Will do. |
hongliangl
force-pushed
the
20241001-fix-nnp
branch
from
569fa36 to
87da3fe
Compare
hongliangl
changed the title
antoninbas
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
| ipset := newLastRealized.ipsets[ipProtocol] | ||
|
|
||
| shouldUpdateCoreIPTRules := prevIPSet != ipset || prevIPNet != ipnet | ||
| // The name of ipset for a rule will not change during updates. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is that why the case where ipset != "" && prevIPSet != "" && ipset != prevIPSet is not possible?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly. Here are the cases:
- Single IP change: A -> B (prevIPSet = "", ipset = "", prevIPNet = A, ipnet = B).
- Transition from multiple addresses to a single IP: {A, B} -> A (prevIPSet = "ipset name", ipset = "", prevIPNet = "", ipnet = A).
- Transition from a single IP to multiple addresses: A -> {A, B} (prevIPNet = A, ipnet = "", prevIPSet = "", ipset = "ipset name").
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ipset name is based on the rule ID, which determines that it will not change for a given rule.
| s2p1 := mockRouteClient.DeleteNodeNetworkPolicyIPTables([]string{"ANTREA-POL-INGRESSRULE1"}, false).Times(1) | ||
| s2p2 := mockRouteClient.DeleteNodeNetworkPolicyIPSet("ANTREA-POL-INGRESSRULE1-4", false) | ||
| s2p3 := mockRouteClient.AddOrUpdateNodeNetworkPolicyIPTables([]string{"ANTREA-POL-INGRESS-RULES"}, [][]string{nil}, false).Times(1) | ||
| s1p2.After(s1p1) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there any chance that we can use gomock.InOrder for those? Maybe not because of the last one (s2p3.After(s1p2))?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gomock.InOrder is a great way for these test cases! It can be used to optimize all the existing test cases.
hongliangl
force-pushed
the
20241001-fix-nnp
branch
2 times, most recently
from
58ceb7a to
56c8285
Compare
…cy updates or deletions This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
hongliangl
force-pushed
the
20241001-fix-nnp
branch
from
56c8285 to
1616677
Compare
antoninbas
approved these changes
Oct 8, 2024
Contributor
|
/test-kind-all |
hongliangl
added a commit
to hongliangl/antrea
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (antrea-io#6707) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
hongliangl
added a commit
to hongliangl/antrea
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (antrea-io#6707) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
hongliangl
added a commit
to hongliangl/antrea
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (antrea-io#6707) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
tnqn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (#6707) (#6728) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
tnqn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (#6707) (#6727) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
tnqn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (#6707) (#6726) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
hangyan
pushed a commit
to hangyan/antrea
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
…cy updates or deletions (antrea-io#6707) This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order of ipset and iptables synchronization. Signed-off-by: Hongliang Liu <hongliang.liu@broadcom.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix #6706
This commit addresses an issue where stale ipset or iptables chain is
not deleted during NodeNetworkPolicy updates or deletions. The root cause
is that the ipset or iptables chain is still referenced by other iptables
rules during the deletion or update attempt. The fix ensures proper order
of ipset and iptables synchronization.