Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 55606, 59185, 58763, 59072, 59251). 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>.
Fix a typo in pkg/controller/volume/persistentvolume/pv_controller.go
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Fix typo (a -> an)
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
none
**Release note**:
```release-note
none
```
When a PVC explicitly requests specific PV and the PV does not match,
we should tell the user what exactly does not match.
From:
Volume's size is smaller than requested or volume's class does not match with claim
To:
Cannot bind to requested volume "<volume name>": %s
where %s is one of:
- requested PV is too small
- storageClasseNames do not match
- incompatible volumeMode
- error checking volumeMode: api defaulting for volumeMode failed (this should not ever happen)
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 56375, 56872, 57053, 57165, 57218). 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>.
Improved event generation in volume mount,attach, and extend operations
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
Fixes#57217
refactored mount, attach, extend operation's so that all failures generate events and event generation is more consistent.
```release-note
Improved event generation in volume mount, attach, and extend operations
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 54604, 55781, 55806, 55935, 55991). 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>.
Use core client with explicit version
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Core client without explicit version has been deprecated, change them to the one with explicit version.
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes**:
Fixes partially #55993
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
/cc @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-pr-reviews
/cc @caesarxuchao @k82cn @sttts @kevin-wangzefeng
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 51321, 55969, 55039, 56183, 55976). 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>.
Topology aware volume scheduler and PV controller changes
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Scheduler and PV controller changes to support volume topology aware scheduling, as specified in kubernetes/community#1168
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
Fixes#54435
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
* I've split the PR into logical commits to make it easier to review
* The remaining TODOs I plan to address next release unless you think it needs to be done now
**Release note**:
```release-note
Adds alpha support for volume scheduling, which allows the scheduler to make PersistentVolume binding decisions while respecting the Pod's scheduling requirements. Dynamic provisioning is not supported with this feature yet.
Action required for existing users of the LocalPersistentVolumes alpha feature:
* The VolumeScheduling feature gate also has to be enabled on kube-scheduler and kube-controller-manager.
* The NoVolumeNodeConflict predicate has been removed. For non-default schedulers, update your scheduler policy.
* The CheckVolumeBinding predicate has to be enabled in non-default schedulers.
```
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews @kubernetes/sig-scheduling-pr-reviews
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>.
Block volumes Support: CRI, volumemanager and operationexecutor changes
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This PR contains following items to enable block volumes support feature.
- container runtime interface change
- volumemanager changes
- operationexecuto changes
**Which issue this PR fixes**:
Based on this proposal (kubernetes/community#805) and this feature issue: kubernetes/features#351
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
There are another PRs related to this functionality.
(#50457) API Change
(#53385) VolumeMode PV-PVC Binding change
(#51494) Container runtime interface change, volumemanager changes, operationexecutor changes
(#55112) Block volume: Command line printer update
Plugins
(#51493) Block volumes Support: FC plugin update
(#54752) Block volumes Support: iSCSI plugin update
**Release note**:
```
Adds alpha support for block volume, which allows the users to attach raw block volume to their pod without filesystem on top of the volume.
```
/cc @msau42 @liggitt @jsafrane @saad-ali @erinboyd @screeley44
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 54987, 55221, 54099, 55144, 54215). 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>.
Should not sync the volume when claim.Spec.VolumeName is null
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
Fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
PV controller should send events to PVCs and not PVs when a PVC requests PV
that's either too small or has mismatching StorageClass.
Regular users can't see events on PVs so `kubectl describe pvc` is the only
way how to tell user that something is wrong.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add storageClass.mountOptions and use it in all applicable plugins
split off from https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/50919 and still dependent on it. cc @gnufied
issue: https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/168
```release-note
Add mount options field to StorageClass. The options listed there are automatically added to PVs provisioned using the class.
```
When API server crashes *after* saving a provisioned PV and before sending
200 OK, the controller tries to save the PV again. In this case, it gets
AlreadyExists error, which should be interpreted as success and not as error.
Especially, a volume that corresponds to the PV should not be deleted in the
underlying storage.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 51441, 51356, 51460)
Don't update pvc.status.capacity if pvc is already Bound
As discussed here https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/657#discussion_r128008128, in order for `pvc.status.Capacity < pv.Spec.Capcity` to be the mechanism for volume filesystem* resize, the pv controller should stop updating pvc.status.Capacity every resync period.
/assign @jsafrane
/sig storage
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add volume operation metrics to operation executor and PV controller
This PR implements the proposal for high level volume metrics https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/809
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
~Differences from proposal:~ all resolved
~"verify_volume" is now "verify_volumes_are_attached" + "verify_volumes_are_attached_per_node" + "verify_controller_attached_volume." Which of them do we want?~
~There is no "mount_device" metric because the MountVolume operation combines MountDevice and mount (plugin.Setup). Do we want to extract the mount_device metric or is it okay to keep mountvolume as one? For attachable volumes, MountDevice is the actual mount and Setup is a bindmount + setvolumeownership. For unattachable, mountDevice does not occur and Setup is an actual mount + setvolumeownership.~
~PV controller metrics I did not implement following the proposal at all. I did not change goroutinemap nor scheduleOperation. Because provisionClaimOperation does not return an error, so it's impossible for the caller to know if there is actually a failure worth reporting. So I manually create a new metric inside the function according to some conditions.~
@gnufied
I have tested the operationexecutor metrics but not provision & delete. Sample:
**Release note**:
```release-note
Add error count and time-taken metrics for storage operations such as mount and attach, per-volume-plugin.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 46458, 50934, 50766, 50970, 47698)
Prepare VolumeHost for running mount tools in containers
This is the first part of implementation of https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/278 - running mount utilities in containers.
It updates `VolumeHost` interface:
* `GetMounter()` now requires volume plugin name, as it is going to return different mounter to different volume plugings, because mount utilities for these plugins can be on different places.
* New `GetExec()` method that should volume plugins use to execute any utilities. This new `Exec` interface will execute them on proper place.
* `SafeFormatAndMount` is updated to the new `Exec` interface.
This is just a preparation, `GetExec` right now leads to simple `os.Exec` and mount utilities are executed on the same place as before. Also, the volume plugins will be updated in subsequent PRs (split into separate PRs, some plugins required lot of changes).
```release-note
NONE
```
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
@rootfs @gnufied
We want relatively short resync period of PV/PVCs and at the same time we
don't want to force such short resync to all shared informer consumers.
Therefore we need to make our own periodic resync.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 46076, 43879, 44897, 46556, 46654)
Local storage plugin
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Volume plugin implementation for local persistent volumes. Scheduler predicate will direct already-bound PVCs to the node that the local PV is at. PVC binding still happens independently.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*:
Part of #43640
**Release note**:
```
Alpha feature: Local volume plugin allows local directories to be created and consumed as a Persistent Volume. These volumes have node affinity and pods will only be scheduled to the node that the volume is at.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove alphaProvisioner in PVController and AlphaStorageClassAnnotation
remove alpha annotation and alphaProvisioner
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Improve event msg for PV controller when using external provisioner
Improve event msg for PV controller when using external provisioner
**Which issue this PR fixes** *:
Fixed part of #42121
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
@jsafrane, as many of our users are confused by the original message, can we fix the message first and then consider how to control the count of the events?
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 41775, 39678, 42629, 42524, 43028)
matchPredicate does not fit findByClaim()
matchPredicate has two args which are type of PV,and is not used in function findByClaim(),remove it
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
check if the volume requested by the claim satisfies the requirements of the claim before binding when
syncUnboundClaim and claim.Spec.VolumeName is not set
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Make Constants Public so that They Can Be Used in an Ext. Provisioner
Out-of-tree external provisioners have the same purpose as in-tree provisioners. As external provisioners work with PV and PVC datastructures it's an advantage to import certain Kubernetes packages instead of copy-pasting the Kubernetes code.
That's why the constants are made public so that they can be used in an external provisioner.
@jsafrane @kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
```
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
fix createProvisionedPV result err judgenment bug
When ctrl.kubeClient.Core().PersistentVolumes().Create(volume) returns no err, and storeVolumeUpdate() fails, we save PV sucessfully ,but here err is not nil,we should not run the codes next in block if err != nil {} to delete the storage asset.
same in the deletion retries below
change the err names to make it clear
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
@jsafrane @saad-ali PTAL. Thanks
When ctrl.kubeClient.Core().PersistentVolumes().Create(volume) returns no err, but storeVolumeUpdate() failed, we save PV sucessfully ,but here err is not nil,
we should not run the codes next in block if err != nil {}
same in the deletion retries below
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 42522, 42545, 42556, 42006, 42631)
optimize the binding logic of bindClaimToVolume
extract var shouldSetBoundByController and do not need to judge volumename twice
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Out-of-tree external provisioners have the same purpose as in-tree provisioners. As external provisioners work with PV and PVC datastructures it's an advantage to import certain Kubernetes packages instead of copy-pasting the Kubernetes code.
That's why the constants are made public so that they can be used in an external provisioner.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 41306, 42187, 41666, 42275, 42266)
Implement bulk polling of volumes
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.
cc @justinsb
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 (batch tested with PRs 41814, 41922, 41957, 41406, 41077)
pv_controller: Do not report exponential backoff as error.
It's not an error when recycle/delete/provision operation cannot be started
because it has failed recently. It will be restarted automatically when
backoff expires.
This just pollutes logs without any useful information:
```
E0214 08:00:30.428073 77288 pv_controller.go:1410] error scheduling operaion "delete-pvc-1fa0e8b4-f2b5-11e6-a8bb-fa163ecb84eb[1fbd52ee-f2b5-11e6-a8bb-fa163ecb84eb]": Failed to create operation with name "delete-pvc-1fa0e8b4-f2b5-11e6-a8bb-fa163ecb84eb[1fbd52ee-f2b5-11e6-a8bb-fa163ecb84eb]". An operation with that name failed at 2017-02-14 08:00:15.631133152 -0500 EST. No retries permitted until 2017-02-14 08:00:31.631133152 -0500 EST (16s). Last error: "Cannot delete the volume \"11a4faea-bfc7-4713-88b3-dec492480dba\", it's still attached to a node".
```
```release-note
NONE
```
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 41364, 40317, 41326, 41783, 41782)
changes to cleanup the volume plugin for recycle
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Code cleanup. Changing from creating a new interface from the plugin, that then calls a function to recycle a volume, to adding the function to the plugin itself.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes#26230
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
Took same approach from closed PR #28432.
Do you want the approach to be the same for NewDeleter(), NewMounter(), NewUnMounter() and should they be in this same PR or submit different PR's for those?
**Release note**:
```NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove alpha provisioning
This is the first part of https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/36
@kubernetes/sig-storage-misc
**Release note**:
```release-note
Alpha version of dynamic volume provisioning is removed in this release. Annotation
"volume.alpha.kubernetes.io/storage-class" does not have any special meaning. A default storage class
and DefaultStorageClass admission plugin can be used to preserve similar behavior of Kubernetes cluster,
see https://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/persistent-volumes/#class-1 for details.
```
It's not an error when recycle/delete/provision operation cannot be started
because it has failed recently. It will be restarted automatically when
backoff expires.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40855, 40859)
PV binding: send an event when there are no PVs to bind
This is similar to scheduler that says "no nodes available to schedule pods"
when it can't schedule a pod.
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
This fix prevents the PV controller from forcefully overwriting the provisioned volume's name with the generated PV name. Instead, it allows dynamic provisioner implementers to set the name of the volume to a value that they choose.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39064, 40294)
Refactor persistent volume tests
This is an attempt to make the binder tests a bit more concise. The PVCs are being created by a "templating" function. There is also a handful of PVs in the tests but those vary quite more and I don't think similar approach would save us much code.
Reference:
https://reviewable.kubernetes.io/reviews/kubernetes/kubernetes/29006#-KPJuVeDE0O6TvDP9jia
@jsafrane: I hope this is what you have on mind.
PV controller should not use Controller.Requeue, as as it is not available in
shared informers. We need to implement our own work queues instead where we
can enqueue volumes/claims as we want.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
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
perfectly: 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.
## 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 add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
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)
Kubernetes Submit Queue
