integration: Adds Windows equivalent for TestSandboxRemoveWithoutIPLeakage#6180
Conversation
|
Hi @claudiubelu. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a containerd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Build succeeded.
|
claudiubelu
force-pushed
the
integration/windows-ip-leak
branch
from
937210b to
a50ec48
Compare
|
Build succeeded.
|
|
@claudiubelu What's the status of this? I see you expect the test to fail, what should we be doing with this PR? Are we waiting for a fix so the test passes? |
Sounds like an issue to me. We should find a fix for it, and merge this PR afterwards to test against it, so we're sure we don't regress. This currently only checks azure-vnet-ipam, but other CNIs should be checked as well. |
|
Can you please rebase to test with the latest test changes |
…akage Adds an equivalent TestSandboxRemoveWithoutIPLeakage for Windows, in which we assert that the IPs are not leaked when a Pod's HNS namespace dissapears and the Pod is deleted afterwards. Signed-off-by: Claudiu Belu <[email protected]>
claudiubelu
force-pushed
the
integration/windows-ip-leak
branch
from
a50ec48 to
894af07
Compare
Done. /cc @gabriel-samfira |
|
@claudiubelu: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: gabriel-samfira. Note that only containerd members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs. DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Build succeeded.
|
|
/ok-to-test |
| if !strings.Contains(string(cniConfig), "azure-vnet-ipam") { | ||
| t.Skip("azure-vnet ipam is not in use") | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test requires the azure-vnet-ipam CNI plugin? Can this test run outside Azure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could run on any infra, but we need a CNI and these tests are running on azure right now I think.
| require.True(t, checkIP(ip)) | ||
|
|
||
| t.Logf("Kill sandbox container") | ||
| require.NoError(t, KillPid(int(info.Pid))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will only work for process containers but I guess thats fine given the support statement at the moment
8 participants
Adds an equivalent TestSandboxRemoveWithoutIPLeakage for Windows, in which we assert that the IPs are not leaked when a Pod's HNS namespace dissapears and the Pod is deleted afterwards.
The test currently fails, as it seems that the Pod's IP remains "in use" after the Pod is deleted.
Sample output: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/t47hmr2RyB/
Signed-off-by: Claudiu Belu [email protected]