feat: use indexer to retrieve endpointslices directly by service name

[defaulterrr]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Why is this change required? What problem does it solve?

This contribution increases overall performance of the sync portion in the controller for clusters with large amounts of services and endpointslices. Previously, for each service controller would list all endpointslices in it's storer (which may contain thousands of objects) and filter them using some string magic that is based on the internals of how endpointslice controller works on the control plane side. This is bad in both terms of performance and future-proofness:

• Having 10000 services and 10000 endpointslices in cluster will result in processing of about 100_000_000 strings. Using indexed storage allows controller to get required slices with O(1) time complexity
• Relying on how endpointslice controller generates names creates an implicit dependency on the control-plane-specific mechanisms. K8s already provides a much easier way to connect endpointslices to their parent services. As this ingress controller relies on services to be present (as in we don't process endpointslices created manually), i see no reason not to just use this built-in label

Also, while fixing the failing tests, i've found that some of the tests were logically incorrect - as in they were not matching slices that were owned by requested service.

What i've done

1. Created a new indexer named after a tech-label "kubernetes.io/service-name"
2. Added this indexer to the existing informer to index all incoming objects
3. Used this index in ByKey function of the lister and removed previous code which filtered eps using string magic
4. Fixed tests that were covering this functionality and introduced indexer to their setup

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• CVE Report (Scanner found CVE and adding report)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation only

How Has This Been Tested?

This change alters the internal behaviour of the controller, but does not affect user-facing behaviours, so no new tests are required in my opinion. I've updated & fixed tests that were covering this section of the code. As i've changed one of the test cases "the key exists" i'd like to confirm that following is the expected behaviour: MatchByKey function will return all endpointslices that were created by the provided service key, as in were created and are in the same namespace as this service. Previous test case was not matching this condition as one of the endpointslices created by the same service was not returned (and so ingress-controller would not pass it's endpoints to the nginx).

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• I have added unit and/or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

• ✅login: defaulterrr / (dff0055)

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: defaulterrr
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign gacko for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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]

Welcome @defaulterrr!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/ingress-nginx 🎉. 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/ingress-nginx 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]

Hi @defaulterrr. 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.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-ingress-nginx canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	dff0055
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-ingress-nginx/deploys/6630dbef5910b20008ec5ce8

[Gacko]

/uncc

[Gacko]

/cc @strongjz @tao12345666333 @cpanato

[strongjz]

/kind feature
/ok-to-test
/priority backlog
/triage accepted

[tao12345666333]

/assign

[defaulterrr]

Hello! I was wondering whether anyone has been able to take a look at this PR.. is there anything i can do to ease the process of merging these changes to the master? As far as i can see, this is still not a breaking change even for latest releases of the controller

I saw that this issue was discussed at the weekly SIG meetings, but couldn't find any notes on the topic :(