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)
Currently kubelet volume management works on the concept of desired
and actual world of states. The volume manager periodically compares the
two worlds and perform volume mount/unmount and/or attach/detach
operations. When kubelet restarts, the cache of those two worlds are
gone. Although desired world can be recovered through apiserver, actual
world can not be recovered which may cause some volumes cannot be cleaned
up if their information is deleted by apiserver. This change adds the
reconstruction of the actual world by reading the pod directories from
disk. The reconstructed volume information is added to both desired
world and actual world if it cannot be found in either world. The rest
logic would be as same as before, desired world populator may clean up
the volume entry if it is no longer in apiserver, and then volume
manager should invoke unmount to clean it up.
This commit adds a new volume manager in kubelet that synchronizes
volume mount/unmount (and attach/detach, if attach/detach controller
is not enabled).
This eliminates the race conditions between the pod creation loop
and the orphaned volumes loops. It also removes the unmount/detach
from the `syncPod()` path so volume clean up never blocks the
`syncPod` loop.
In podSecurityPolicy:
1. Rename .seLinuxContext to .seLinux
2. Rename .seLinux.type to .seLinux.rule
3. Rename .runAsUser.type to .runAsUser.rule
4. Rename .seLinux.SELinuxOptions
1,2,3 as suggested by thockin in #22159.
I added 3 for consistency with 2.
- Add volume.MetricsProvider function to Volume interface.
- Add volume.MetricsDu for providing metrics via executing "du".
- Add volulme.MetricsNil for unsupported Volumes.
IsLikelyNotMountPoint determines if a directory is not a mountpoint.
It is fast but not necessarily ALWAYS correct. If the path is in fact
a bind mount from one part of a mount to another it will not be detected.
mkdir /tmp/a /tmp/b; mount --bin /tmp/a /tmp/b; IsLikelyNotMountPoint("/tmp/b")
will return true. When in fact /tmp/b is a mount point. So this patch
renames the function and switches it from a positive to a negative (I
could think of a good positive name). This should make future users of
this function aware that it isn't quite perfect, but probably good
enough.
deads2k