Skip to content

Conversation

jmanthei
Copy link
Contributor

@jmanthei jmanthei commented Aug 19, 2025

Version(s): 4.19

Issue: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSDOCS-15776

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

  • QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 19, 2025
@jmanthei jmanthei changed the base branch from main to enterprise-4.19 August 19, 2025 21:20
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 19, 2025
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

ocpdocs-previewbot commented Aug 19, 2025

🤖 Mon Aug 25 14:45:31 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://97806--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/release_notes/ocp-4-19-release-notes.html

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 19, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 19, 2025
|===
|
|4.19
|4.19z
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I might take this out of a table format because we typically do not lump known issues together like this in our docs. What would be most helpful, I think, is to provide more context for these issues and links for users to get more information.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Heard

|4.19z

|Excess istio-ca-root-cert configmaps
|Y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I expect to see more context pulled from the bug, such as:

By default, istiod will create a ConfigMap istio-ca-root-cert in every namespace it watches. This behavior depends on the discoverySelectors, so that any proxy that might be injected in those namespaces has istiod's CA root certificate. This is needed for the proxies to verify the istiod's certificate when performing the initial connection. No 'normal' sidecar injections are planned. The only injection necessary is Gateway injection based on k8s Gateway API resources. Therefore, avoid the creation of potentially unneeded ConfigMaps in the entire cluster. This issue was fixed for Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 3.0.1. However, istiod does not clean up existing ConfigMaps. https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-9076

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good!

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 20, 2025
@jmanthei jmanthei force-pushed the OSDOCS-15776-retry branch from 71455af to 96d0490 Compare August 20, 2025 16:43
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 21, 2025
@jmanthei jmanthei force-pushed the OSDOCS-15776-retry branch 2 times, most recently from 76ffd19 to 7542c81 Compare August 21, 2025 14:55
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 21, 2025
@jmanthei jmanthei force-pushed the OSDOCS-15776-retry branch 2 times, most recently from fc0d161 to 7af2b84 Compare August 21, 2025 20:54
@jmanthei
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@jmanthei
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest-required

@jmanthei jmanthei force-pushed the OSDOCS-15776-retry branch from 7af2b84 to 0f3b969 Compare August 25, 2025 14:31
@jmanthei jmanthei force-pushed the OSDOCS-15776-retry branch from 0f3b969 to f9110fb Compare August 25, 2025 14:32
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 25, 2025

@jmanthei: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@jmanthei
Copy link
Contributor Author

@candita please review

Copy link
Contributor

@sferich888 sferich888 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to get some more SME details put into each of these line items that explain what actions a user can preform (even if it is wait for updates - see bug).

Many of these potentially define 'expected user behaviors' that likely need to go into the docs directly (but that depends on if/how we plan to fix the bugs - that are connected to them). As such I don't know that they warrant 'release note' (known issues status); as we typically reserve that for 'major' bugs/issues.


* By default, `istiod` will create a ConfigMap `istio-ca-root-cert` in every namespace it watches, which can create unnecessary ConfigMaps. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-9076[OSSM-9076])

* When using Gateway API via the Cluster Ingress Operator (CIO), any Istio specific resources (e.g. VirtualService) are not allowed or supported. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-9154[OSSM-9154])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not allowed? As In I shouldn't create these; or the server will reject them (which is it)?
When you say supported; does this mean it breaks something or are we just not testing/validating this (thus its not supported)?

In short the verbage here leave a lot to the reader to interpret; and we want to where possible remove ambiguity; is there a way we can clean this up to be more explicit about what we mean here?

@@ -2809,6 +2809,40 @@ To save the `vmcore` file, use the `crashkernel` setting to reserve 1024 MB of m

* NFS volumes exported from VMware vSAN Files cannot be mounted by clusters running {product-title} 4.19 due to RHEL-83435. To avoid this issue, ensure that you are running VMware ESXi and vSAN at the latest patch versions of 8.0 P05, or later. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-55978[OCPBUGS-55978])

Known Gateway API issues

* By default, `istiod` will create a ConfigMap `istio-ca-root-cert` in every namespace it watches, which can create unnecessary ConfigMaps. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-9076[OSSM-9076])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the workaround? Do we have one (or is this something that people just have to deal with)?
If your 'affected' by this what action should you be taking (watch the bug for updates)?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sferich888 Most of these are open OSSM or NE bugs that we know about but haven't had time to fix. No workarounds, and very little other information.


* When using Gateway API via the Cluster Ingress Operator (CIO), any Istio specific resources (e.g. VirtualService) are not allowed or supported. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-9154[OSSM-9154])

* Istio will copy all labels and annotations from your Gateway objects to the child resources it creates. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSSM-8989[OSSM-8989])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What problem does this create? Why is a release note needed for this? Should we have a KCS for this instead?

The same applies for the next ~7 line items.

Copy link

@candita candita Aug 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sferich888 we are basically trying to tell people - we know these are issues so please don't report duplicate issues. We're trying to get ahead of bug reports, in other words. If this is not the right approach, please let me know.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do the majority of issues in SM come from customer direct filed bug reports? If not; I think it might be better to speak with CEE about why so many bug reports are being filed (that the team is having to close as duplicates).

What is the duplicate bug count (and/or closure rate); compared to the overall backlog of issues the team is managing? cc: @CFields651 (as you might be needed to help look into this).

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sferich888 I was more concerned with the unnecessary effort that the support person would need to go through to finally get to the point where they open a bug, and then we find that it is for an issue we already know about. Or a customer, who, for example, makes grand plans to enable Gateway API on BareMetal without realizing it won't work.

I think the most important items can be summarized and added to existing 4.19 docs instead of release notes. No doubt they will be more visible there anyway.

@jmanthei I spoke to my team leads/manager, and I will try to come up with something like a "Things you need to know before enabling Gateway API" section. For now, you can close this PR. My apologies for the false start and thanks for the effort.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@candita I really appreciate the heads up.


* Gateway API has no OpenShift Console command line integration. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NE-1102[NE-1102])

* Gateway API has no configuration of access logs or other Istio options. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NE-1926[NE-1926])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there some corrective action a user can take?

@sferich888
Copy link
Contributor

I think we need to get some more SME details put into each of these line items that explain what actions a user can preform (even if it is wait for updates - see bug).

@candita is this something someone on your team can provide inputs into?

@candita
Copy link

candita commented Aug 25, 2025

/assign

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants