jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: What happened: When kube-proxy is configured with a cluster-cidr range, it drops packets with an INVALID conntrack state for all sources on the KUBE-FORWARD chain. This is meant to prevent spurious retransmits in long-lived TCP connections to a service IP, but it prevents clusters from having asymmetrical routing on private subnets with services outside of a cluster. What you expected to happen: Packets on the KUBE-FORWARD chain with an INVALID conntrack state should be dropped for only sources inside of the cluster-cidr if set. How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): N/A Anything else we need to know?: Change to drop INVALID conntrack packets was in Backing out that commit and compiling is my current workaround. Environment: Kubernetes version (use ): 1.17.2 Cloud provider or hardware configuration: OS (e.g: ):Kernel (e.g. ):
/sig network
/triage unresolved Comment when the issue is assessed and confirmed. I am a bot run by vllry. ‍
I am reading but I don't fully grok what caused the problem in the first place, or why we think "only drop if it was in-cluster" is a correct fix? Edit, OK I get the original problem, but still don't understand why packets from outside the pod range would not exhibit , thereby requiring yet another revisit of this problem. Is this a conntrack bug? Should it be applying the DNAT?
/triage unresolved Comment when the issue is assessed and confirmed. I am a bot run by vllry. ‍
I can try to give a bit more context to our setup, but the knowledge I have around this all dates back to Feb, unfortuately, so I may have forgotten details. We were replacing our mesos cluster with a kubernetes cluster in Feb and using a custom ingress solution (HAProxy w/an outside process configuring it for pod ips / mesos ip-ports) for both. The ingress nodes lived in the private subnet, but outside of the kubernetes cluster cidr range. When we upgraded from kubernetes 1.14 to kubernetes 1.15 (the first version with PR ) our ingress could no longer talk to any pod ips.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: I discovered that the KUBE-FORWARD chain had a rule to drop invalid packets, which was in Compiling kubernetes 1.15 without this commit fixed our problems, and we have been carrying that patch forward ever since. I would like to get rid of our forked kubernetes, hence this ticket. When I was writing this ticket up, I also found also mentions the same issue with the iptables dropping INVALID conntrack state packets near the end, regarding asymmetrical routing. Edit, OK I get the original problem, but still don't understand why packets from outside the pod range would not exhibit , thereby requiring yet another revisit of this problem. I think you are correct, I can imagine packets from outside of a cluster could exhibit the same behavior as packets inside the cluster and cause spurious resets. However, I am wondering if kube-proxy should be managing packets from outside of the cluster on a node... That seems outside of the scope of kube-proxy.
If this issue has been triaged, please comment . If you aren't able to handle this issue, consider unassigning yourself and/or adding the label. I am a bot run by vllry. ‍
I took a stab at implementing what I think is the correct behavior for kube-proxy in .
/assign
I think that another option is to set
I don't understand how that will help me here. The packets with a ctstate INVALID are not generated due to conntrack saturation (), but due to asymmetric routing in our network. See for an example of a similar setup.
are the packets on your asymmetric routing setup marked as invalid if you set ? it should only mark the ones that are out of window per the description
/triage accepted
I'd love to pin this down, but I don't have the means to set up a repro. Is there a way I can set up a way to experiment?
We were bit by this too after revisiting an old service that had been unused since the heady days of pre-, and would also like to see the proposed patch merged (or a configuration option to prevent insertion of the INVALID state drop rule - either suits us). I unfortunately don't have any useful input as to setting up for reproduction. In our case we have a pretty odd anycast set up with a small pool of (public) addresses managed by calico.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: However I do seem to have a dirty workaround for small clusters. By setting notrack (ctstate UNTRACKED?) in the raw table for packets in our specific ranges that would otherwise match ctstate INVALID, the packets aren't dropped. Which may be of help to someone else who finds this issue.
We are seeing something very similar on large file downloads and our issue exactly fits this one's subject. These RESET (corrected after are happening intermittently and I am seeing similar behavior mentioned in the blog mentioned below. I am unsure if someone has found a workaround for this issue or not, so yeah my +1 to this issue being looked up by the community.
We're using as a solution for the connection reset we were seeing and might fix this issue.
Let me try to avoid that this thread derails and see if I can get current status: -proxy install rules to drop INVALID cstate connections, this solves the ~REJECT~ RESET problems are some scenarios, with asymmetric routing per example, that this rules may drop unrelated traffic. The request is to remove the rule that drops those INVALID states or to try to restrict it, and that can cause that people start to have the ~REJECT~ RESET problems and drops again. If we have a reproducer we can be more precise in the final solution, but removing one rule without any strong evidence in kube-proxy is very risky As a workaround for the asymetric routing problem, I suggested to set the nfconntracktcpbeliberal on the kernel: I think that will solve the problems, it will be good if someone can test it and provide feedback
No sadly, its my bad, it is not REJECT, it is RESET that's happening and conntrack has nothing to do with it, mostly (I hope). Kubeproxy is doing what is intended but specifically when there are external agents in play, the packet doesn't sends an ACK back to the response of SYN-ACK. Our case, we hit A to initiate a download, A calls B to get the action completed to generate download data for the user finally via their browser. A and B both are on k8s, we saw A starts and a complete cycle goes for sometime until there multiple parallel downloads requested where few gets completed and few gets a RESET.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: On primary debugging, it appears that RESET was getting invoked by the pod but pod is just sending a RST-ACK not RST itself. The missing packet is never found in the default route, unless we see that there is a chance where ACK is missed and we found some lines in tcpdump with missing sequence for ACKs. Thats why i doubt my issue is related here. One more weird coincidence is few downloads have spurious transmission.
Thankyou, I will take a look, but mostly I would like to wait before using it, debug more to understand the actual cause and then act on it.
sorry , I wanted to say RESET, thanks for catching it. If you think is different and you can provide information and how to reproduce it, I suggest you to open a new issue
I will sure do, when it is different. For now I would like to watch and submit my findings if it is related. PS: sysctl -w net.netfilter.nfconntracktcpbeliberal=1 is already implemented and we are testing if it does something helpful. so far it doesn't looks like it. thanks for your help.
/area kube-proxy
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle rotten
I have the feeling we are also affected by this with a standard calico installation: every node announces a /122 IPv6 network to the upstream router the upstream router uses ECMP to route the packet back packets that are sent from* the pod and returned via asymmetric path from outside seem to be dropped
and if you set ?
Same behaviour with set on all nodes, the outgoing pod traffic does not return. And I instantly see packets going back into the drop rule:
:thinking:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Reopen this issue or PR with Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /close [1]:
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closedReopen this issue or PR with Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
Hi, are you still working on this? Same problem happened in our clusters, just because of asymmetrical routing.
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen </details
Also the command suggested by is helping us, but I still think this should be a bug of kube-proxy.
The problem here is: what happens if the solutions are exclusive or we regress? The addition of this rule fixed a legit bug that was documented and there is also a nice blog explaining the details Removing this rule without a repro and understanding what is the root cause of this issue is not really the best way to proceed. I think that people affected should try to find the root cause and explain the problem or just provide a way to reproduce it, so we can fix it
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Reopen this issue or PR with Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at .
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: /close [1]:
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closedReopen this issue or PR with Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
The same problem happened in our cluster, the same as because of asymmetrical routing. the command suggested by doesn't work for us, and I delete the iptables rule and add new rule(refer to ), it works I think that makes sense I'll put up a reproduction of the gist link later on /reopen
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
The main problem is how to be completely sure we don't regress, this comment from Tim is spot on
I'm trying to check that non-local connections will still reset without the INVALID Rule
I think the patch in is wrong; it changes the rule from "if INVALID then drop" to "if INVALID and from a pod, then drop" so that it doesn't affect non-kubernetes traffic, but I think the rule we actually need is "if INVALID and to a service, then drop". In particular, I believe we need to make sure that the rule applies to traffic with a cluster-external source and an in-cluster destination. It's possible that changing it to "if INVALID and to a pod, then drop" would also work. I skimmed and some linked bugs elsewhere but I was unable to confirm whether that rule would cover the reporters' use cases.
I think that is only INVALID and to a pod
In my case, cluster-external source to service is both ok with the INVALID rule or without the INVALID rule. It seems the rule doesn't affect on access service.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: I add this rule but it doesn't work
So, based on that, the bug happens when a reply packet fails to get un-DNAT'ed, causing the client to then send a RST to the server, which matches the source/destination IP that the server knows of. But this could happen if you had a service with external IPs too; in that case the reply packet would be from the external endpoint IP to the node IP (because the packet would have been masqueraded), and if conntrack didn't unmap it correctly then the node would send a RST to the external IP, breaking the connection in just the same way. In this case there is no good way kube-proxy can recognize the packet as being its own, other than by using conntrack, which presumably won't work if the packet is INVALID?
It seems that there is no better way to solve this for external sources accessing the cluster CIDR, is it right? If so, Can we have a flag to decide whether to create The invalid rule? It would be nice that It's up to the user to decide whether to create the rule.
There's related discussion in . I think we should create whatever iptables rules we can that will fix up our own traffic without interfering with other traffic, and also document the sysctl that admins can use to change conntrack behavior to work around the problem. So probably, we should change the "drop if INVALID" rule to "drop if INVALID and to a pod", and also address the problem in , but not try to solve the problem with external IPs I mentioned in because we don't have a good way of fixing that without potentially breaking other things. (And it's kind of way more of an edge case anyway.) Note that can currently output rules for "from a pod", but not for "to a pod", so that will need some tweaking. (FWIW will also eventually need the ability to output nftables rules rather than iptables rules so that's another thing to think about if someone is going to change its API.)
So in the absence of a way to fix the problem with external IPs, can we have a flag to decide whether to create this rule or not? If true (default), create the drop if INVALID and to a pod rule. Otherwise, We do not create the rule.
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: I believe that even without this rule we can solve this problem by way of sysctl, right? I think we should do the following things We need a flag to disable the rule We should change the "drop if INVALID" rule to "drop if INVALID and to a pod" We document sysctl as a way to solve the problem.
If the rule is "drop if INVALID and to a pod", we shouldn't need a flag to disable it; it won't affect non-pod traffic, and it won't interfere with users that want to set the sysctl instead. (Setting the sysctl will cause packets to not be marked as INVALID so the rule we add just won't get hit.)
OK, drop if INVALID and to a pod is help us identify cluster traffic, right? We only drop cluster traffic if it's invalid, but this will not solve the problem of external IP. So we need a flag to disable the rule is drop if INVALID?
The same problem happened in our cluster, the same as because of asymmetrical routing None of the above methods solve the problem in our ENV. Are there any other workarounds?
Can you execute the following command on each node? I think this is a workaround.
Thank you for your reply I also tried removing this rule. However, k8s will reconfigure the deleted rules to the system at some point in time.
I worded that badly: I meant "external IP" as in "the endpoints are cluster-external IPs rather than pod IPs", not as in . So that would apply only to people using kube-proxy to load-balance traffic from clients outside the cluster to servers outside the cluster, which is a pretty weird use case. And nobody ever reported the packet RST bug for that case anyway. So I was arguing that we can just ignore that case. So: change the existing "drop if invalid" rule to "drop if invalid and to a pod" document the sysctl We don't need an option to disable the drop rule, because it won't affect non-k8s traffic, and it will automatically become a no-op if someone decides to use the sysctl instead.
Thank you for your response. I'd love to take this one. But I have a question, How to define k8s traffic?
Code change:
out.Min = (*int32)(unsafe.Pointer(in.Min)) out.TCPEstablishedTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPEstablishedTimeout)) out.TCPCloseWaitTimeout = (*v1.Duration)(unsafe.Pointer(in.TCPCloseWaitTimeout)) <ins> out.TCPBeLiberal = in.TCPBeLiberal </ins> out.UDPTimeout = in.UDPTimeout out.UDPStreamTimeout = in.UDPStreamTimeout return nil

Related discussion:
text: If a pod in a cluster, we call it an underlay pod, its IP is not allocated from cluster CIDR, this is a real underlay IP, when it accesses other underlay pods in the cluster or pods that allocate IP from cluster CIDR(We call it overlay pod), is this k8s traffic? In our cluster, multiple types of CNI pods are implemented through multus running in a cluster, because of the problem of asymmetrical routing and the rule that makes them inaccessible, it seems that the above method will not solve this problem.
For kube-proxy, this is done by the . If you are in a cluster where there is no simple way to discriminate pod from non-pod traffic, then you'd have to run kube-proxy with , and then kube-proxy will see that returns and so it won't try to distinguish local from non-local traffic, and will do some things (like internal/external traffic policy) slightly differently as a result. So in this case, if there was no functioning localDetector, it would also not create the "drop invalid" rule
Thanks for the details, this is probably the case we want.
/assign
I did not understand how you could get asymmetric routing in K8s, but reading up more carefully I saw: If I understand this correctly, this is a load-balancer outside K8s that load-balance directly to POD addresses. To get asymmetric routing some kind of Direct Server Return (DSR) must also be used. So, to get asymmetric routing: from an external source is directed to an external LB LB is configured with POD-IPs as targets and selects one packet is routed to a K8s node, e.g. with ECMP. But is may not be the node where the target POD is executing packet is handled by the POD, but the response packet may be directed to some other GW This will give asymmetric routing. But it's not the every-day K8s network setup for sure. Given the above it's fairly easy to reproduce the problem. You don't even have to setup a load-balancer. The biggest problem may be that you need two ways in to the cluster. Example: ! I setup direct routes that ensures asymmetric routing, which can be checked with on vm-201 and vm-202.