Change:
// Note that ValidateOwnerReferences() will reject this patch if another // OwnerReference exists with controller=true. addControllerPatch := fmt.Sprintf( <del> `{ "metadata": { "ownerReferences": [{"apiVersion":"%s","kind":"%s","name":"%s","uid":"%s","controller":true,"blockOwnerDeletion":true}], "uid":"%s", "finalizers": ["foregroundDeletion"] } }`, </del> <ins> `{"metadata":{"ownerReferences":[{"apiVersion":"%s","kind":"%s","name":"%s","uid":"%s","controller":true,"blockOwnerDeletion":true}],"uid":"%s"}}`, </ins> m.controllerKind.GroupVersion(), m.controllerKind.Kind, m.controller.GetName(), m.controller.GetUID(), rs.UID) return m.rsControl.PatchReplicaSet(rs.Namespace, rs.Name, []byte(addControllerPatch))

Discussion:
Seeing this in v1.6.1. a Deployment and a Service the Deployment add an ownerRef that points back to the Service delete the Service The Service and the Deployment are deleted, but the ReplicaSet and pods remain. This is neither Orphan nor Foreground/Background policy. This behavior should never happen. Note: if I make a delete call to the API with propagationPolicy set explicitly then things behave as expected, so this only occurs when the resource's default propagation policy is being used.
There are no sig labels on this issue. Please by:<br(1) mentioning a sig: <br(2) specifying the label manually: <br<brNote: method (1) will trigger a notification to the team. You can find the team list and label list
cc
This is expected. The default garbage collection policy for old controller types (rc, rs, deployment) etc. is orphaning, for backward compatibility. And when doing BackgroundGC, the GC controller doesn't set the deleteOptions.propagationPolicy. We met a similar problem for deleting deployment -RS -pods. Because that is a very common use case, we made a special fix in As you noticed, if you set deleteOptions.propagationPolicy to Orphan or ForegroundGC, it works as you expected.
that seems wrong. if I'm using the garbage collection feature to propagate (whether a user specified it or it was a default of a parent resource), I expect GC to set propagation policy.
rather than a one-off fix in the RS controller, why not address the break in the propagation chain in the GC controller?
In the backgroundGC, the owner is deleted immediately, so unlike orphaning or the foregroundGC, there is no finalizer left for the GC controller to determine the intention of the user. In the absence of the user's intention, the GC controller doesn't set deleteOptions.PropagationPolicy when deleting dependents.
If it's not orphaning, and it's not foregroundGC, the only logical option that remains is backgroundGC
There is another case, user might intentionally choose not to set DeleteOptions.Propagation policy and wants to respect the existing finalizers of the dependents or the default GCstrategy defined by the REST storage of the dependents.

except that it isn't... if I delete resource X and specify no propagation policy, that resource strategy's default propagation policy should take effect just as if the user had specified it.
Add CronJobs to the list of affected resources, since you have CronJob-Job-Pod chain. :+1: to what Jordan said just above.

BUG REPORT: <!-- If this is a BUG REPORT, please: Fill in as much of the template below as you can. If you leave out information, we can't help you as well. If this is a FEATURE REQUEST, please: Describe in detail the feature/behavior/change you'd like to see. In both cases, be ready for followup questions, and please respond in a timely manner. If we can't reproduce a bug or think a feature already exists, we might close your issue. If we're wrong, PLEASE feel free to reopen it and explain why. --Kubernetes version: 1.6.1 Environment: Hardware configuration: 2 identical machines, with i7-2600K CPUs and 4GB RAM. OS: CentOS 7 Kernel: 3.10.0-514.10.2.el7.x86_64 Install tools: KubeADM What happened: Deleting a deployment via the API with the DeleteOptions settings or deletes the Deployment and the replica set but NOT the pods. Deleting it with the DeleteOptions setting works as intended. What you expected to happen: The replica set deletion should propagate to the pods. I've read that the garbage collection should work for Deployments in 1.6. How to reproduce it: Anything else we need to know: I am using the and at the moment it only supports the orphanDependants option, since it's still at api version 1.5.
cc:
We discussed the problem in I'll change the GC to make sure it's cascading.
Sent
Any progress on this?
Still trying to figure out a sane fix:
I've encountered the same issue. My pods are still running even though I deleted the deployment.
lets come up with a fix for 1.7. This should work from the first time we introduced cascading deletion in Deployments.
Yes, we should. Do you have any comments on
replied. Let's move this forward. If the fix is small, I am going to backport it to 1.6.
Offline discussion with we punt this to v1.8.
Discussed with if we can get the PR fixed soon, it can still go in 1.7. It's a real bug fix.
Yes, we need to fix this for 1.7 and also backport to 1.6.

Should this be targeting 1.7?
yes, the fix that went in in is going to cause us data issues we don't want
Are you working on this? What's the timeline to resolution?
Based on above comment, looks like actually introduced a new regression. Am I right?
In , I reverted what's introduced in .
- is working on it
I approved this for 1.7 based on comment at We should revert , but are we ok with since it also introducing a new behavior. I will leave to decide.
replaces with a fix that addresses this issue systemically. While this bug did exist in 1.6.x, more things rely on GC in 1.7 than in 1.6, and without that fix, GC leaves more resources vulnerable to unintentional orphaning. Since the issue is actually with general GC behavior, should weigh in.