Add NTH Queue Processor Mode

[haugenj]

Issue:
#7119

Adds the queue-processor mode to the Node Termination Handler Add on and provisions the requisite resources (SQS Queue, Eventbridge rules/targets, ASG Lifecycle Hooks, IAM policy updates).

Opening this up early to see if there are any big gaps in what I've done

Todo:

• Tests
• Checking for existing resources when updating
• Cloudformation/Terraform support

Questions:

• Am I missing anything big?
• How to switch between existing IMDS NTH yaml template and new Queue processor one. I'm assuming I can use something like {{ with .NodeTerminationHandler.EnableSqsTerminationDraining }} at the top of the file? I'm not familiar with this logic... is it bootstrap?
• Do we want to support a higher level of customization for the queue-processor through additional configuration options?
• I based this off of the branch release-1.19 instead of master because I didn't see the existing NTH config in master. Is this alright?

[k8s-ci-robot]

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
• If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
• Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: [email protected]

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @haugenj!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kops 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kops has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @haugenj. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[olemarkus]

Thanks for this PR. Looks like it is going in the right direction

Questions:

* Am I missing anything big?

* How to switch between existing IMDS NTH yaml template and new Queue processor one. I'm assuming I can use something like `{{ with .NodeTerminationHandler.EnableSqsTerminationDraining }}` at the top of the file? I'm not familiar with this logic... is it bootstrap?

If the templates are radically different and easiest to maintain separatly, you can switch the location here:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kops/blob/master/upup/pkg/fi/cloudup/bootstrapchannelbuilder/bootstrapchannelbuilder.go#L546

* Do we want to support a higher level of customization for the queue-processor through additional configuration options?

I suspect so, yes. I am not sure what is configurable here.
What we usually do is to support the obvious configurations that users typically change, and then wait for feature requests for the rest.

* I based this off of the branch `release-1.19` instead of master because I didn't see the existing NTH config in master. Is this alright?

Not quite sure what you mean here. The configuration for NTH is in the same place in master as in the 1.19 branch:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kops/blob/master/pkg/apis/kops/componentconfig.go#L844

[olemarkus]

Definitely on the right path here. Thanks for this and keep up the good work!

[olemarkus]

Technically the PSP stuff isn't required. kube-system has a default allow-anything policy if the admission controller is enabled. But fine to leave it in if it makes copy/pasting from source easier.

[haugenj]

I'm leaning towards leaving it in. IMO it'd be simpler to keep it exactly in line with the default config released by NTH

[haugenj]

I ended up removing it and merging the two templates, with an if/else to switch between the IMDS daemonset and the Queue Processor deployment, the rest of the templates were the same

[haugenj]

Not quite sure what you mean here. The configuration for NTH is in the same place in master as in the 1.19 branch:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kops/blob/master/pkg/apis/kops/componentconfig.go#L844

Not sure how I didn't see that tbh 😅. I'll move the changes to the master branch on the next revision

[haugenj]

@olemarkus can you give me some pointers for what kind of tests I should add to this?

[olemarkus]

Typically validation tests: https://kops.sigs.k8s.io/contributing/adding_a_feature/#tests
This helps ensuring users cannot configure the cluster and components in an incompatible way.

In addition, it would be nice with an integration test that pretty much does a full deployment and ends up in "golden" cloudformation/terraform files. See https://kops.sigs.k8s.io/contributing/testing/#adding-an-integration-test.

Ping me if you need any help

[olemarkus]

Except for the comments made, I think this one is good to go.

[olemarkus]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rifelpet

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [rifelpet]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[rifelpet]

Thanks for sticking with this @haugenj ! I think a lot of people will be eager to use this functionality