Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

VAULT-32568: Shutdown node when it's not in the raft config #29052

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

miagilepner
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR has a removed node shutdown if it sees that it's not in the raft configuration. For extra safety's sake, the node must have previously been present in the configuration in order for the node to shutdown.

TODO only if you're a HashiCorp employee

  • Backport Labels: If this fix needs to be backported, use the appropriate backport/ label that matches the desired release branch. Note that in the CE repo, the latest release branch will look like backport/x.x.x, but older release branches will be backport/ent/x.x.x+ent.
    • LTS: If this fixes a critical security vulnerability or severity 1 bug, it will also need to be backported to the current LTS versions of Vault. To ensure this, use all available enterprise labels.
  • ENT Breakage: If this PR either 1) removes a public function OR 2) changes the signature
    of a public function, even if that change is in a CE file, double check that
    applying the patch for this PR to the ENT repo and running tests doesn't
    break any tests. Sometimes ENT only tests rely on public functions in CE
    files.
  • Jira: If this change has an associated Jira, it's referenced either
    in the PR description, commit message, or branch name.
  • RFC: If this change has an associated RFC, please link it in the description.
  • ENT PR: If this change has an associated ENT PR, please link it in the
    description. Also, make sure the changelog is in this PR, not in your ENT PR.

@miagilepner miagilepner added this to the 1.19.0-rc milestone Nov 28, 2024
@miagilepner miagilepner requested a review from a team as a code owner November 28, 2024 10:18
@miagilepner miagilepner requested review from digivava, raskchanky, kubawi and bosouza and removed request for a team November 28, 2024 10:18
@github-actions github-actions bot added the hashicorp-contributed-pr If the PR is HashiCorp (i.e. not-community) contributed label Nov 28, 2024
Copy link

CI Results:
All required Go tests succeeded but failures were detected ⚠️
Failures:

Test Type Package Test Logs
race vault TestRollbackMetrics view test results
race vault TestRollbackMetrics/include_mount_point view test results

Copy link

Build Results:
All builds succeeded! ✅

@@ -1391,6 +1402,9 @@ func (b *RaftBackend) SetupCluster(ctx context.Context, opts SetupOpts) error {
}
}

if opts.RemovedCallback != nil {
b.removedCallback = opts.RemovedCallback
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be a call to SetRemovedCallback instead? (Genuine question, I am not sure if we care about locking at this point.)

Copy link
Contributor

@kubawi kubawi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@@ -1030,6 +1031,12 @@ func (b *RaftBackend) SetRestoreCallback(restoreCb restoreCallback) {
b.fsm.l.Unlock()
}

func (b *RaftBackend) SetRemovedCallback(cb func()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
func (b *RaftBackend) SetRemovedCallback(cb func()) {
func (b *RaftBackend) setRemovedCallback(cb func()) {

Can we leave this function unexported?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
hashicorp-contributed-pr If the PR is HashiCorp (i.e. not-community) contributed pr/no-changelog
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants