Skip to content

fix: stop swallowing the client-certificate error#374

Open
xrl wants to merge 1 commit into
etcd-io:mainfrom
xrl:pr/T0-client-cert-error
Open

fix: stop swallowing the client-certificate error#374
xrl wants to merge 1 commit into
etcd-io:mainfrom
xrl:pr/T0-client-cert-error

Conversation

@xrl

@xrl xrl commented Jun 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

When an EtcdCluster requests TLS, fetchAndValidateState provisions the operator's client certificate via createClientCertificate. That error was logged and then ignored, so reconciliation proceeded even though the credential the TLS data path depends on was never created — the failure is invisible and surfaces later as a more confusing downstream error.

This returns a requeue with backoff (the existing requeueDuration, matching the sibling error paths in the same function) on failure, so provisioning is retried instead of silently swallowed.

Adds a unit test that drives fetchAndValidateState with a fake client whose scheme omits the cert-manager types (forcing the certificate lookup to fail) and asserts a non-zero RequeueAfter with no reconcileState returned (reconcile does not proceed past cert provisioning).

Refs #370


Related work — etcd TLS & operability

Independent peer/client TLS reshape and surrounding operability work, in dependency / stacking order ( marks this PR):

Change Issue PR Depends on
TLS independence — independent spec.tls.{peer,client} surfaces; breaking alpha API change (no conversion webhook, by design) #371 #372 #373
TLSReady condition + TLS lifecycle Events #376
multi-member TLS quorum e2e + PeerCANotShared #377
stop swallowing the client-certificate error (requeue) #370
configurable reconcile worker pool + Burstable etcd QoS
kind stress/scale e2e harness (1/3/7, churn, quorum watcher)

The TLS reshape (#376) supersedes the earlier conflated T2/T3/T4 plan (per-surface mounts, flags+scheme, and client *tls.Config now all live in #376). T5←#376 and T6←#377 are stacked: review/merge in order. T0, the reconcile/QoS knobs, and the stress harness are independent.

When an EtcdCluster requests TLS, fetchAndValidateState provisions a
client certificate for the operator via createClientCertificate. The
error from that call was logged and then ignored, so reconciliation
continued even though the credential the data path depends on was never
created.

Return a requeue with backoff (the existing requeueDuration, matching the
sibling error paths in this function) on failure so the provisioning is
retried instead of silently swallowed.

Adds a unit test driving fetchAndValidateState with a fake client whose
scheme omits the cert-manager types, forcing the certificate lookup to
fail, and asserts the result is a non-zero RequeueAfter and that no
reconcileState is returned (reconcile does not proceed past cert
provisioning).

Refs etcd-io#370

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Xavier Lange <xrlange@gmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: xrl
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jberkus for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@k8s-ci-robot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi @xrl. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io 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.

Details

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants