Merge pull request #2471 from ehashman/34-sysctls

Migrate KEP-34 to new template
kubernetes · Feb 9, 2021 · 00195f2 · 00195f2
2 parents 5e794b0 + 61bc65c
commit 00195f2
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 3 changed files with 296 additions and 46 deletions.
diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/34.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/34.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 34
+stable:
+  approver: "@johnbelamaric"
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/34-sysctl-fields/README.md b/keps/sig-node/34-sysctl-fields/README.md
@@ -1,23 +1,115 @@
-# Promote sysctl annotations to fields
-
-## Table of Contents
+# KEP-34: Promote sysctl annotations to fields
 
 <!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
 - [Summary](#summary)
 - [Motivation](#motivation)
-  - [Promote annotations to fields](#promote-annotations-to-fields)
+  - [Goals/Non-Goals](#goalsnon-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Promote annotations to fields (beta)](#promote-annotations-to-fields-beta)
   - [Promote <code>--experimental-allowed-unsafe-sysctls</code> kubelet flag to kubelet config api option](#promote--kubelet-flag-to-kubelet-config-api-option)
   - [Gate the feature](#gate-the-feature)
-- [Proposal](#proposal)
-  - [User Stories](#user-stories)
-  - [Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints](#implementation-detailsnotesconstraints)
+  - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats](#notesconstraintscaveats)
   - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
-- [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+    - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
+    - [Graduation](#graduation)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
 - [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks / Alternatives](#drawbacks--alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
 <!-- /toc -->
 
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [x] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [x] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
+- [x] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+- [x] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [x] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [x] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
 ## Summary
 
+This proposal aims at extending the current pod specification with support
+for namespaced kernel parameters (sysctls) set for each pod.
+
+See the [abstract and motivation](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#abstract) from the original proposal in v1.4.
+
+## Motivation
+
+See the original design proposal's [motivation section](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#motivation).
+
+As mentioned in [contributors/devel/api_changes.md#alpha-field-in-existing-api-version](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-field-in-existing-api-version):
+
+> Previously, annotations were used for experimental alpha features, but are no longer recommended for several reasons:
+>
+>    They expose the cluster to "time-bomb" data added as unstructured annotations against an earlier API server (https://issue.k8s.io/30819)
+>    They cannot be migrated to first-class fields in the same API version (see the issues with representing a single value in multiple places in backward compatibility gotchas)
+>
+> The preferred approach adds an alpha field to the existing object, and ensures it is disabled by default:
+>
+> ...
+
+The annotations as a means to set `sysctl` are no longer necessary.
+The original intent of annotations was to provide additional description of Kubernetes
+objects through metadata.
+It's time to separate the ability to annotate from the ability to change sysctls settings
+so a cluster operator can elevate the distinction between experimental and supported usage
+of the feature.
+
+
+### Goals/Non-Goals
+
+See: original [constraints and assumptions](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#constraints-and-assumptions)
+
+## Proposal
+
+See the [original design proposal](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#proposed-design) for alpha.
+
+### Promote annotations to fields (beta)
+
 Setting the `sysctl` parameters through annotations provided a successful story
 for defining better constraints of running applications.
 The `sysctl` feature has been tested by a number of people without any serious
@@ -61,28 +153,6 @@ in the following way:
 
 The `sysctl` design document with more details and rationals is available at [design-proposals/node/sysctl.md](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#pod-api-changes)
 
-## Motivation
-
-As mentioned in [contributors/devel/api_changes.md#alpha-field-in-existing-api-version](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-field-in-existing-api-version):
-
-> Previously, annotations were used for experimental alpha features, but are no longer recommended for several reasons:
->
->    They expose the cluster to "time-bomb" data added as unstructured annotations against an earlier API server (https://issue.k8s.io/30819)
->    They cannot be migrated to first-class fields in the same API version (see the issues with representing a single value in multiple places in backward compatibility gotchas)
->
-> The preferred approach adds an alpha field to the existing object, and ensures it is disabled by default:
->
-> ...
-
-The annotations as a means to set `sysctl` are no longer necessary.
-The original intent of annotations was to provide additional description of Kubernetes
-objects through metadata.
-It's time to separate the ability to annotate from the ability to change sysctls settings
-so a cluster operator can elevate the distinction between experimental and supported usage
-of the feature.
-
-### Promote annotations to fields
-
 * Introduce native `sysctl` fields in pods through `spec.securityContext.sysctl` field as:
 
   ```yaml
@@ -139,11 +209,9 @@ If disabled, the fields and the whitelist are just ignored.
 
 [1] https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
 
-## Proposal
-
-This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.
+### User Stories (Optional)
 
-### User Stories
+See also: [original sysctl proposal](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#abstract-use-cases)
 
 * As a cluster admin, I want to have `sysctl` feature versioned so I can assure backward compatibility
   and proper transformation between versioned to internal representation and back..
@@ -152,7 +220,7 @@ This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.
 * As a cluster admin, I want to be able to apply the `sysctl` constraints on the cluster level so
   I can define the default constraints for all pods.
 
-### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats
 
 Extending `SecurityContext` struct with `Sysctls` field:
 
@@ -188,15 +256,181 @@ Validation checks implemented as part of [#27180](https://github.com/kubernetes/
 We need to assure backward compatibility, i.e. object specifications with `sysctl` annotations
 must still work after the graduation.
 
-## Graduation Criteria
+## Design Details
+
+All of the above details were copied out of earlier proposals. For graduation, the PRR template below is completed.
+
+### Test Plan
+
+- Unit tests and e2es for all applicable changes.
+- Any required conformance tests for graduation.
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+#### Alpha
+
+* add sysctl support to pods
+* e2e tests
+
+Alpha since 1.4.
+
+#### Beta
 
 * API changes allowing to configure the pod-scoped `sysctl` via `spec.securityContext` field.
 * API changes allowing to configure the cluster-scoped `sysctl` via `PodSecurityPolicy` object
-* Promote `--experimental-allowed-unsafe-sysctls` kubelet flag to kubelet config api option
 * feature gate enabled by default
-* e2e tests
+
+Beta since 1.11.
+
+#### Graduation
+
+* Promote `--experimental-allowed-unsafe-sysctls` kubelet flag to kubelet config api option
+* lock feature gate on
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+There are [e2es](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/28e2e12b887fe082929d3ece4b3cbd572dc15d39/test/e2e/upgrades/sysctl.go) for sysctl behaviour on upgrades.
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+N/A
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+- [X] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: Sysctls
+  - Components depending on the feature gate: kubelet, apiserver
+- [ ] Other
+  - Describe the mechanism:
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+    plane?
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+    of a node? (Do not assume `Dynamic Kubelet Config` feature is enabled).
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+No. Enabling the feature allows the use of sysctls.
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Yes, disable the feature flag.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+Feature will become available again on the component.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+Not currently. Feature has defaulted to on since 1.11; graduation criteria would lock feature to on.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+###### How can a rollout fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+N/A
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+N/A
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+Yes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/28e2e12b887fe082929d3ece4b3cbd572dc15d39/test/e2e/upgrades/sysctl.go
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+N/A
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+No metric currently exists. Feature flag will be set to on and Pod or PSP specifications will include sysctl fields set.
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+N/A, not a service.
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the above SLIs?
+
+N/A, not a service.
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+N/A
+
+### Dependencies
+
+Underlying kernel support for sysctls.
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+No.
+
+### Scalability
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+Yes: pods and PSPs have new fields for sysctl values.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+No.
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+Feature is an API field on pod specification; kubelets behave as usual when API server/etcd are unavailable.
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/72593 
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/74151
+
+There may be some follow-ups required to improve usability, but I do not
+believe this should block graduation.
+
+Any scheduling enhancement we make around a node that is configured to allow
+unsafe sysctls would be a distinct feature.
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+SLOs do not apply, N/A.
 
 ## Implementation History
 
-The `sysctl` feature is tracked as part of [features#34](https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/34).
-This is one of the goals to promote the annotations to fields.
+- 2017-06-12: [Original design proposal](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/700)
+- 2018-05-14: [Update KEP with beta criteria](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/2093)
+- 2018-06-06: [Promote sysctl annotations to fields](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/63717)
+- 2018-06-14: [Update sysctls to beta on website](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/8804)
+- 2019-07-02: [Add allowed sysctl to KubeletConfiguration](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/72974)
+- 2021-02-08: Update KEP with final graduation criteria/complete PRR questionnaire
+
+## Drawbacks / Alternatives
+
+See also: [original design alternatives and considerations](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/sysctl.md#design-alternatives-and-considerations)
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+N/A