restore ability to run against secured etcd #21535

adohe-zz · 2016-02-19T11:23:30Z

k8s-github-robot · 2016-02-19T11:24:38Z

Labelling this PR as size/M

adohe-zz · 2016-02-19T11:43:49Z

@lavalamp First I want to say I am sorry about opening this PR without carefully test since I have some questions and just want to confirm: 1) why we keep EtcdQuorumRead in ServerRunOption while put other etcd related attributes in APIServer struct? 2) After restore etcd secure ability, there are totally 7 fields about etcd configuration in APIServer, also this make newEtcdFunc signature two long, how about refactoring these 7 fields to one struct, for example EtcdConfig(three are already one) 3) for now all of etcd storage tests are with insecure etcd server, shall we add the same test cases but with secure enable? 4) finally I just want to ask something about e2e test setting. I run below commands to do e2e tests, but just failed.

sudo ./hack/local-up-cluster.sh
make all
_output/local/bin/linux/amd64/e2e.test --host="127.0.0.1:8080" --provider="local" --ginkgo.v=true -ginkgo.dryRun=true --kubeconfig="/home/tony/.kubernetes_auth" --repo-root="/home/tony/Documents/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/"

Also the .kubernetes_auth has such content:

{
  "User": "root",
  "Password": ""
}

And the e2e result is:

------------------------------
SchedulerPredicates [Serial] 
  validates MaxPods limit number of pods that are allowed to run [Slow]
  /home/tony/Documents/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/_output/local/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/scheduler_predicates.go:278
•
------------------------------
Pods 
  should get a host IP [Conformance]
  /home/tony/Documents/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/_output/local/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/pods.go:227
•
Ran 173 of 235 Specs in 0.016 seconds
SUCCESS! -- 0 Passed | 0 Failed | 0 Pending | 62 Skipped PASS

It seems nothing happen.
Just hope to get your feedback.

k8s-bot · 2016-02-19T11:58:12Z

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit 4f07378b59a7e27b7fba0df23349905ab1e265d9.

timothysc · 2016-02-19T14:18:13Z

pkg/storage/etcd/etcd_helper.go

+	}
+}
+
+func (c *EtcdConfig) newHttpTransport() etcd.CancelableTransport {


@xiang90 care to comment here.

A big TODO for a test. I'm not sure the best way. I'm assuming you manually tried it and it works? :)

@lavalamp of course, I am setting up a real test cluster to test this.

lavalamp · 2016-02-19T22:47:12Z

Thank you for throwing this together.

lavalamp · 2016-02-20T06:58:49Z

Sorry, totally didn't see your comment with the question. I'm not sure what's wrong, but you can try adding the -ginkgo.focus= parameter to get it to run a specific test.

k8s-github-robot · 2016-02-22T06:03:45Z

Labelling this PR as size/L

k8s-bot · 2016-02-22T06:22:57Z

GCE e2e test build/test passed for commit 5d99a15e44f257e5b0b658354d388251758f12af.

k8s-github-robot · 2016-02-22T08:29:23Z

PR needs rebase

k8s-bot · 2016-02-22T09:14:53Z

GCE e2e test build/test passed for commit f6cc7db6add481ebfe9c8f09b841c59d14164d7b.

lavalamp · 2016-02-22T18:43:50Z

pkg/storage/etcd/etcd_helper.go

-	client     etcd.KeysAPI
-	codec      runtime.Codec
-	copier     runtime.ObjectCopier
+	mapi   etcd.MembersAPI


etcdMembers or etcdMembersClient or membersClient. Same for 'kapi'.

(IMO: short abbreviations help readability in short function local variables and hurt it in structs as member variables)

lavalamp · 2016-02-22T18:44:38Z

New config struct is looking good, but I guess you have a bit more to do on this?

adohe-zz · 2016-02-23T01:53:29Z

@lavalamp of course, I am keep going.

k8s-bot · 2016-02-23T04:51:20Z

GCE e2e test build/test passed for commit 76cc3f753f4f9cdfbf46d5864c1e201583d9fa97.

bgrant0607 · 2016-03-11T16:47:44Z

Is this ready to LGTM @liggitt ? I see a comment above that suggests that it is.

liggitt · 2016-03-11T16:49:24Z

Yes, LGTM

adohe-zz · 2016-03-11T16:59:38Z

seems the rkt unit test failed #22856. Besides I opened a follow-up issue to decide on InsecureSkipVerifyTLS here #22858

k8s-bot · 2016-03-11T17:00:25Z

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 7228b9b.

eparis · 2016-03-11T17:00:58Z

@bgrant0607 is right. kind/old-docs is pretty meaningless at this point. I might get rid of it.

bgrant0607 · 2016-03-11T17:03:32Z

I'm fine with that @eparis

bgrant0607 · 2016-03-11T17:39:33Z

@k8s-bot unit test this issue: #22856

adohe-zz · 2016-03-11T18:43:22Z

seems ready to merge. @bgrant0607

k8s-github-robot · 2016-03-11T19:12:14Z

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

k8s-bot · 2016-03-11T19:44:48Z

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 7228b9b.

bgrant0607 · 2016-03-11T20:14:04Z

e2e flaked again. Manually merging @k8s-oncall

restore ability to run against secured etcd

eparis · 2016-03-11T21:48:03Z

This PR is included in #22874 which is slated to be included in the release-1.2 branch.
Please verify that the cherry-pick in that PR looks correct.

restore ability to run against secured etcd

googlebot added the cla: yes label Feb 19, 2016

k8s-github-robot assigned dchen1107 Feb 19, 2016

k8s-github-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 19, 2016

timothysc reviewed Feb 19, 2016
View reviewed changes

lavalamp assigned lavalamp and unassigned dchen1107 Feb 19, 2016

adohe-zz force-pushed the restore_secure_etcd branch from 4f07378 to 5d99a15 Compare February 22, 2016 05:54

k8s-github-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 22, 2016

k8s-github-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 22, 2016

adohe-zz force-pushed the restore_secure_etcd branch from 5d99a15 to f6cc7db Compare February 22, 2016 08:49

k8s-github-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 22, 2016

lavalamp reviewed Feb 22, 2016
View reviewed changes

adohe-zz force-pushed the restore_secure_etcd branch from f6cc7db to 76cc3f7 Compare February 23, 2016 04:22

adohe-zz force-pushed the restore_secure_etcd branch from 76cc3f7 to ea1a073 Compare February 23, 2016 11:33

liggitt added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2016

decide on insecureSkipVerify setting when run against secured etcd #22858

Closed

bgrant0607 added the cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. label Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2016

Merge pull request #21535 from AdoHe/restore_secure_etcd

532ba5a

restore ability to run against secured etcd

bgrant0607 merged commit 532ba5a into kubernetes:master Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 added cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. and removed cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. labels Mar 11, 2016

eparis pushed a commit to eparis/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2016

Merge pull request kubernetes#21535 from AdoHe/restore_secure_etcd

d106abd

restore ability to run against secured etcd

eparis mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2016

Release 1.2 cherry-picks #22874

Merged

eparis removed cherrypick-candidate cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. labels Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz deleted the restore_secure_etcd branch March 14, 2016 02:04

liggitt mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2016

kubernetes-test-go takes ~43min occasionally hitting test timeout #23127

Closed

metahertz pushed a commit to metahertz/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2016

Merge pull request kubernetes#21535 from AdoHe/restore_secure_etcd

3bc17a2

restore ability to run against secured etcd

david-mcmahon added the release-note-action-required Denotes a PR that introduces potentially breaking changes that require user action. label Apr 8, 2016

timothysc mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2016

Update to use latest etcd client library #18635

Merged

shyamjvs pushed a commit to shyamjvs/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2016

Merge pull request kubernetes#21535 from AdoHe/restore_secure_etcd

e46cc4a

restore ability to run against secured etcd

shouhong pushed a commit to shouhong/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2017

Merge pull request kubernetes#21535 from AdoHe/restore_secure_etcd

de3d2cc

restore ability to run against secured etcd

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

restore ability to run against secured etcd #21535

restore ability to run against secured etcd #21535

adohe-zz commented Feb 19, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 19, 2016

adohe-zz commented Feb 19, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 19, 2016

timothysc Feb 19, 2016

lavalamp Feb 19, 2016

adohe-zz Feb 20, 2016

lavalamp commented Feb 19, 2016

lavalamp commented Feb 20, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 22, 2016

lavalamp Feb 22, 2016

lavalamp commented Feb 22, 2016

adohe-zz commented Feb 23, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 23, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

liggitt commented Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-bot commented Mar 11, 2016

eparis commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-bot commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

eparis commented Mar 11, 2016

restore ability to run against secured etcd #21535

restore ability to run against secured etcd #21535

Conversation

adohe-zz commented Feb 19, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 19, 2016

adohe-zz commented Feb 19, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 19, 2016

timothysc Feb 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lavalamp Feb 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adohe-zz Feb 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lavalamp commented Feb 19, 2016

lavalamp commented Feb 20, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Feb 22, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 22, 2016

lavalamp Feb 22, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lavalamp commented Feb 22, 2016

adohe-zz commented Feb 23, 2016

k8s-bot commented Feb 23, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

liggitt commented Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-bot commented Mar 11, 2016

eparis commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

adohe-zz commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-github-robot commented Mar 11, 2016

k8s-bot commented Mar 11, 2016

bgrant0607 commented Mar 11, 2016

eparis commented Mar 11, 2016