Skip to content

Pod Certificates: Fix kubelet volume host arg order; improve logging #133242

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 30, 2025
Merged

Pod Certificates: Fix kubelet volume host arg order; improve logging #133242

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 30, 2025
+107 −32

Conversation

ahmedtd
Copy link
Contributor

@ahmedtd ahmedtd commented Jul 27, 2025 •
edited by liggitt
Loading

While manually testing the Pod Certificates feature end-to-end using Kind, I found that the argument order got swapped in the kubelet volume host when adding the Pod UID. This would have been caught by an e2e test. I'll follow up with one.

Additionally, give projectionKey sensible logging output by making its fields exported.

/kind bug
/sig auth

KEP: kubernetes/enhancements#4317

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. 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 Jul 27, 2025
@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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/kubelet sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. and removed do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Jul 27, 2025
@ahmedtd
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahmedtd commented Jul 28, 2025

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Jul 28, 2025
@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Jul 28, 2025

/lgtm
/approve
/kind bug

I'd +1 asking release folks to add to the milestone, this would be an unfortunate reason for the alpha to be unusable to get feedback in 1.34

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 5ffc7627df9b50eaba05259a491caeb3587fb2c4

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from liggitt July 28, 2025 22:32
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. area/test labels Jul 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahmedtd, liggitt, TP-O

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

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahmedtd, liggitt, TP-O

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

@ahmedtd
Pod Certs: Fix kubelet volume host arg order
4874d41 
Turned up during manual end-to-end testing of the Pod Certificates
feature.  This issue prevents podCertificate projected volumes from
successfully mounting.  Would have been caught by a feature e2e test.

After this fix, podCertificate volumes function correctly in a Kind
cluster.

Additionally, fix logging from podcertificatemanager.  In order for
projectionKey to have sensible logging output, its fields need to be
exported.
@ahmedtd
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahmedtd commented Jul 29, 2025

Also hints test lane shows some relevant warnings and needs to be fixed

I fixed the unchecked error return in the test, but I prefer not to fix the "could remove embedded field" findings --- I personally find it very confusing to have a field be referenced, but not visible in the structure definition.

@SergeyKanzhelev
Copy link
Member

Also hints test lane shows some relevant warnings and needs to be fixed

I fixed the unchecked error return in the test,

did you push the change?

but I prefer not to fix the "could remove embedded field" findings --- I personally find it very confusing to have a field be referenced, but not visible in the structure definition.

this will hunt everybody touching this file. If you don't feel this is a reasonable linter, maybe it needs to be discussed as a separate issue? I am pretty sure we have this everywhere in codebase so your code will not make it better.

@ahmedtd
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahmedtd commented Jul 29, 2025

Also hints test lane shows some relevant warnings and needs to be fixed

I fixed the unchecked error return in the test,

did you push the change?

I had not, apologies. It's pushed now.

but I prefer not to fix the "could remove embedded field" findings --- I personally find it very confusing to have a field be referenced, but not visible in the structure definition.

this will hunt everybody touching this file. If you don't feel this is a reasonable linter, maybe it needs to be discussed as a separate issue? I am pretty sure we have this everywhere in codebase so your code will not make it better.

Based on the discussion that introduced this linter [1], there is no expectation that all issues reported by pull-kubernetes-linter-hints should be fixed. The original PR that introduced this feature (and many other PRs, I'm sure) merged with issues reported by the linter, and I don't think it's worthwhile to pursue zero findings from the linter without a project-wide policy to do so.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/g/dev/c/myGiml72IbM/m/00vB96RKBAAJ

@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Jul 29, 2025

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 29, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: f6d8c22be96ffea005e7ac4aa30585ec900dd323

@ahmedtd
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahmedtd commented Jul 29, 2025

The remaining test failures look like flakes. I will try to rerun them.

/retest

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@SergeyKanzhelev
Copy link
Member

/skip

@jenshu jenshu mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2025
Open
7 tasks
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

5 similar comments
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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:

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@ahmedtd: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-linter-hints 4874d41 link false /test pull-kubernetes-linter-hints

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.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@Vyom-Yadav
Copy link
Member

/milestone v1.34

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.34 milestone Jul 30, 2025
@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Jul 30, 2025

/skip

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 032142c into kubernetes:master Jul 30, 2025
14 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Triage to Done in SIG Node CI/Test Board Jul 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@SergeyKanzhelev SergeyKanzhelev SergeyKanzhelev left review comments

@TP-O TP-O TP-O approved these changes

@ffromani ffromani Awaiting requested review from ffromani

@krmayankk krmayankk Awaiting requested review from krmayankk

@liggitt liggitt Awaiting requested review from liggitt

Assignees

@liggitt liggitt

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubelet area/test 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-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. wg/device-management Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to WG Device Management.
Projects
Dynamic Resource Allocation
Status: 🆕 New
SIG Node CI/Test Board
Status: Done
SIG Node: code and documentation PRs
Status: Done
[sig-release] Bug Triage
Status: Done
Milestone
v1.34
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@ahmedtd @k8s-ci-robot @liggitt @SergeyKanzhelev @k8s-triage-robot @Vyom-Yadav @TP-O