-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40.1k
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
Make a certain ipv4-vs-ipv6 config error non-fatal, for backward compat #121008
Merged
k8s-ci-robot
merged 1 commit into
kubernetes:master
from
danwinship:proxy-startup-error-regression
Oct 5, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this function
badCidrs
only checks that the first cidr in the array is different than the badFamily, but the comment of the function seems to assume all the cidrs are notbadFamily
just for my curiosity, the comment is wrong, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the comment wording is weird but should be
essentially if the list is empty, or as soon as it finds a "good" CIDR that's not of wrongFamily it returns false.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, it loops over all of the CIDRs, but bails out early in some cases. The semantics of the function are sort of confusing, so it's hard for the comment to be both concise and non-confusing...
There are three possibilities:
cidrs
is empty, meaning the admin isn't claiming anything about what the primary IP family is, so we don't learn anything about whether there is a config problem or not.cidrs
is non-empty and contains at least one CIDR of the same family as nodeIP, meaning the admin is expecting that IP family to be in use, meaning it's OK that we detected nodeIP to be of that family.cidrs
is non-empty and contains only CIDRs of the opposite IP family from nodeIP, meaning the admin is asserting that this is a single-stack cluster of that family, meaning our detected nodeIP is wrong.badCIDRs
returnsfalse
in the first two cases andtrue
in the third.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
great, thanks for clarifying