Scale tests show that CAPI or the test itself might leak InMemoryCluster objects

[chrischdi]

What steps did you take and what happened?

• Did run the scale-tests using the inmemory provider
• Noticed there are duplicate inmemorycluster objects created

$ k get inmemorycluster -A | awk '{print $1}'  | sort  | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -n 10
      2 scale-042
      2 scale-035
      2 scale-026
      2 scale-009
      1 scale-500
      1 scale-499
      1 scale-498

What did you expect to happen?

only one inmemorycluster object to exist per cluster.

Cluster API version

~ main

Kubernetes version

No response

Anything else you would like to add?

It is propably due to the scale test which uses CreateOrUpdate.

An update drops all references, so KCP & InMemoryCluster got re-created.

Propably related log when this happens:

failed to create patch helper for Cluster scale-009/scale-009: server side apply dry-run failed for original object: Internal error occurred: failed calling webhook "validation.cluster.cluster.x-k8s.io": failed to call webhook: Post "[https://capi-webhook-service.capi-system.svc:443/validate-cluster-x-k8s-io-v1beta1-cluster?timeout=10s](https://capi-webhook-service.capi-system.svc/validate-cluster-x-k8s-io-v1beta1-cluster?timeout=10s)": context deadline exceeded
error reconciling the Cluster topology
sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/internal/controllers/topology/cluster.(*Reconciler).reconcile
	/home/ubuntu/go/src/sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/internal/controllers/topology/cluster/cluster_controller.go:422
sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/internal/controllers/topology/cluster.(*Reconciler).Reconcile
	/home/ubuntu/go/src/sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/internal/controllers/topology/cluster/cluster_controller.go:343
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller[...]).Reconcile
	/home/ubuntu/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:116
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller[...]).reconcileHandler
	/home/ubuntu/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:303
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller[...]).processNextWorkItem
	/home/ubuntu/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:263
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller[...]).Start.func2.2
	/home/ubuntu/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:224
runtime.goexit
	/usr/local/go/src/runtime/asm_amd64.s:1700

Label(s) to be applied

/kind bug
/area e2e-testing

[chrischdi]

/triage accepted

/help

[k8s-ci-robot]

@chrischdi:
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor.

Guidelines

Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions:

• Why are we solving this issue?
• To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points?
• Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry?
• How can the assignee reach out to you for help?

For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see here and ensure that they are met.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-help command.

In response to this:

/triage accepted

/help

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.

[sbueringer]

Thx for opening the issue!

Could it be that this also happens with a real infra provider and outside of scale tests?

I was wondering if this also happens if after CP / InfraCluster creation the Cluster update call fails? But maybe the cluster-shim protects us against that?

[sbueringer]

Looked at the implementation, my impression is that the cluster-shim doesn't protect us against these kind of leaks. But I could be wrong

[chrischdi]

Not sure about that.

[sivchari]

I'll take on it.

/assign

[chrischdi]

/retitle Scale tests show that they might leak InMemoryCluster objects

We're not sure if this only is because of the scale tests or we have an issue in production code.

/priority important-soon

[chrischdi]

/retitle Scale tests show that CAPI or the test itself might leak InMemoryCluster objects