Since the runtime may try to create mount points within
the sandbox, it will fail if the mount point is within
a read-only API data volume, like a secret or configMap
volume.
Create any needed mount points during volume setup.
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Rework method of updating atomic-updated data volumes
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This change affects the way that secret, configmap, downwardAPI and projected volumes (which all use the same underlying code) implement their data update functionality.
* Instead of creating a subdirectory hierarchy that will contain symlinks to each actual data file, create only symlinks to items in the root of the volume, whether they be files or directories.
* Rather than comparing the user-visible data directory to see if an update is needed, compare with the current version of the data directory.
* Fix data dir timestamp format year
* Create `..data` symlink even when a data volume has no data so consumers can have simplified update watch logic.
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes**:
Fixes#57421
**Release note**:
```release-note
Correct issues that arise when volumes are mounted beneath another secret, configmap, downwardAPI or projected volume
```
This change affects the way that secret, configmap, downwardAPI and projected
volumes (which all use the same underlying code) implement their data update
functionality.
* Instead of creating a subdirectory hierarchy that itself
will contain symlinks to each actual data file, create only
symlinks to items in the root of the volume, whether they
be files or directories.
* Rather than comparing the user-visible data directory
to see if an update is needed, compare with the current
version of the data directory.
* Fix data dir timestamp format year
* Create ..data symlink even when a data volume has no data so
consumers can have simplified update watch logic.
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Update volume OWNERS to reflect active sig-storage reviewers
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Update sig-storage reviewers to add new members and remove those that don't have as much time to review storage PRs. Approvers are unchanged.
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
For all those that have been removed, please approve. If you want to remain as a reviewer, let me know and I will add you back.
**Release note**:
NONE
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 47417, 47638, 46930)
print non-existent key in configmap
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes#41573
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
carry from #41574
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
This implements Bulk volume polling using ideas presented by
justin in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/39564
But it changes the implementation to use an interface
and doesn't affect other implementations.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/volume
cc @jsafrane @spothanis @agonzalezro @justinsb @johscheuer @simonswine @nelcy @pmorie @quofelix @sdminonne @thockin @saad-ali @rootfs
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Joel Smith