Change:
return true, "", "" } <del> func (kl *Kubelet) canRunPod(pod *v1.Pod) lifecycle.PodAdmitResult { attrs := &lifecycle.PodAdmitAttributes{Pod: pod} // Get "OtherPods". Rejected pods are failed, so only include admitted pods that are alive. attrs.OtherPods = kl.GetActivePods() for _, handler := range kl.softAdmitHandlers { if result := handler.Admit(attrs); !result.Admit { return result } } return lifecycle.PodAdmitResult{Admit: true} } </del> // syncLoop is the main loop for processing changes. It watches for changes from // three channels (file, apiserver, and http) and creates a union of them. For // any new change seen, will run a sync against desired state and running state. If

Discussion:
Kubelet soft admission handlers were created as a way for the Kubelet to block pods that cannot be run for reasons that can be resolved. In practice, this mechanism was only ever used by AppArmor (). Problems with soft-admission rejection: is only used by AppArmor, and only for situations that cannot realistically be resolved (host or build does not support apparmor) held in the blocked state must be manually cleaned up. While there they hold reserved capacity from the scheduler and continually retry syncpod. other features work this way - usually Kubelet hard rejects pods that it knows it cannot run, or the runtime fails to start the pod/container. This was originally to prevent controllers from continuously recreating pods that cannot run, but that is a separate problem that should be approached globally, rather than with this 1-off AppArmor solution. I propose we remove Kubelet soft admission entirely, and move the AppArmor admission handler to the hard-admission list. /sig node /milestone v1.31 /kind bug
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions 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
We have a different, alpha mechanism: . We could change AppArmor, seccomp and other mechanisms to work either with PodSchedulingContext or its eventual replacement. IMO we only need to sketch out an approach and see that it looks viable; we don't have to block graduation for AppArmor support on a fleshed-out design.
From my admittedly limited PoV I'm not against removing soft admission, and I got no opinions about AppArmor specifically. However this seems to connected to the recent conversation we're having in WG serving and SIG-node about retriable vs unretriable errors so I think we would need some coordination cc
+1
My understanding is that after this PR: soft admission just doesn't make sense any longer.
Hello ! Just a reminder, the code freeze is starting (about from now), and while there is still plenty of time, we want to ensure that each PR has a chance to be merged on time.

As the issue is tagged for , is it still planned for this release?
Discussed in sig-node, decided to move forward with this (move AppArmor admission to the hard admission set, remove soft-admission code)
/assign
- do you want me to incorporate this change into