OCPBUGS-90520: UPSTREAM: <carry>: Promote regression-issue-74839 to 1.5

[arkadeepsen]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Promotes regression-issue-74839 to 1.5 downstream only so that the fix can be tested first in downstream and then taken to upstream.

Cherry-picked fix from upstream PR kubernetes#139874 by @mkowalski

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Adjusted SYN/ACK pending-state matching in the probe logic to ensure the expected injected “boom!!!” behavior is correlated correctly.
  • Updated the regression test image to version 1.5 to keep the suite aligned with current expected artifacts.
• Chores
  • Bumped the internal regression image version reference from 1.4 to 1.5.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-90520, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (5.0.0) matches configured target version for branch (5.0.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (core-networking-bot@redhat.com), skipping review request.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Promotes regression-issue-74839 to 1.5 downstream only so that the fix can be tested first in downstream and then taken to upstream.

Cherry-picked fix from upstream PR kubernetes#139874 by @mkowalski

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@arkadeepsen: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 43b8327|Use 4-tuple to track connections to fix conntrack test flakes: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 6a4b5c3|UPSTREAM: : Promote regression-issue-74839 to 1.5: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: openshift/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 3e6aad91-42c4-43f6-8c3d-53b2a84b3957

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6a4b5c3 and 6392eb0.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• test/images/regression-issue-74839/VERSION
• test/images/regression-issue-74839/main.go
• test/utils/image/manifest.go

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)

• test/images/regression-issue-74839/VERSION
• test/utils/image/manifest.go

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• test/images/regression-issue-74839/main.go

---

Walkthrough

The regression-issue-74839 test image changes its pending SYN/ACK match key to include source port and probing IP, and the image version is updated from 1.4 to 1.5 in both metadata locations.

Changes

Regression Image Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Probe key and version bump test/images/regression-issue-74839/main.go, test/images/regression-issue-74839/VERSION, test/utils/image/manifest.go	The probe pending map key now uses a composite identifier with source port and probing IP, and the regression image version is updated to 1.5 consistently.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Related PRs: None identified from the provided context.

Suggested labels: test, kind/bug

Suggested reviewers: None identified from the provided context.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 14 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (14 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main change: promoting regression-issue-74839 to version 1.5.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Stable And Deterministic Test Names	✅ Passed	No Ginkgo-style test titles were changed; touched files only bump the image version and adjust packet matching, and tcp_test.go uses static subtest names.
Test Structure And Quality	✅ Passed	PR only bumps the regression image and manifest version; no Ginkgo It blocks or test setup code were changed, so the structure/quality rules don’t apply.
Microshift Test Compatibility	✅ Passed	No new Ginkgo tests were added; the PR only bumps a test image and its version, with no MicroShift-blocked APIs or assumptions in touched files.
Single Node Openshift (Sno) Test Compatibility	✅ Passed	PASS: The PR only bumps a regression test image/version and adjusts helper packet-tracking logic; no new Ginkgo tests or multi-node/HA assumptions were added.
Topology-Aware Scheduling Compatibility	✅ Passed	Only a test image version bump and packet-handling code changed; no deployment manifests, controllers, or topology-related scheduling constraints were introduced.
Ote Binary Stdout Contract	✅ Passed	Touched process-level code has no stdout writes; main.go only uses log.Printf and searches found no fmt.Print/klog/stdout redirection in startup paths.
Ipv6 And Disconnected Network Test Compatibility	✅ Passed	No new Ginkgo e2e test or external connectivity was added; the PR only bumps the regression image and adjusts internal TCP state matching.
No-Weak-Crypto	✅ Passed	Touched files only bump image version and adjust TCP test logic; no MD5/SHA1/DES/RC4/3DES/Blowfish/ECB or secret-comparison code was added.
Container-Privileges	✅ Passed	The PR only bumps the regression image version and tweaks test logic; no privileged, hostPID/Network/IPC, or securityContext escalation fields were added.
No-Sensitive-Data-In-Logs	✅ Passed	PASS: The only code change is the pending-key/version bump; no new log statements or sensitive fields were added.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: arkadeepsen
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign benluddy 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:

• DOWNSTREAM_OWNERS

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

[openshift-ci-robot]

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-90520, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (5.0.0) matches configured target version for branch (5.0.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (core-networking-bot@redhat.com), skipping review request.

Details

In response to this:

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Promotes regression-issue-74839 to 1.5 downstream only so that the fix can be tested first in downstream and then taken to upstream.

Cherry-picked fix from upstream PR kubernetes#139874 by @mkowalski

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
• Updated a regression test image to the latest version, keeping the test suite aligned with current behavior.
• Chores
• Bumped an internal image version reference from 1.4 to 1.5.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@arkadeepsen: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 42201d7|UPSTREAM: 139874: Use 4-tuple to track connections to fix conntrack test flakes: the upstream PR kubernetes/kubernetes#139874 has not yet merged
• 6392eb0|UPSTREAM: : Promote regression-issue-74839 to 1.5: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-90520, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (5.0.0) matches configured target version for branch (5.0.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (core-networking-bot@redhat.com), skipping review request.

Details

In response to this:

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Promotes regression-issue-74839 to 1.5 downstream only so that the fix can be tested first in downstream and then taken to upstream.

Cherry-picked fix from upstream PR kubernetes#139874 by @mkowalski

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
• Adjusted SYN/ACK pending-state matching in the probe logic to ensure the expected injected “boom!!!” behavior is correlated correctly.
• Updated the regression test image to version 1.5 to keep the suite aligned with current expected artifacts.
• Chores
• Bumped the internal regression image version reference from 1.4 to 1.5.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[jubittajohn]

/retest

[openshift-ci]

@arkadeepsen: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview	6392eb0	link	false	/test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview
ci/prow/e2e-metal-ipi-ovn-ipv6	6392eb0	link	true	/test e2e-metal-ipi-ovn-ipv6
ci/prow/k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn	6392eb0	link	true	/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-serial-2of2	6392eb0	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial-2of2
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-cgroupsv2	6392eb0	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn-cgroupsv2

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[jubittajohn]

@arkadeepsen Could we hold off on this PR until the Kube rebase is merged? We're likely targeting sometime next week for the Kube rebase changes to land, and we'd prefer to avoid additional code churn until that's complete.

[arkadeepsen]

@arkadeepsen Could we hold off on this PR until the Kube rebase is merged? We're likely targeting sometime next week for the Kube rebase changes to land, and we'd prefer to avoid additional code churn until that's complete.

Sure @jubittajohn. In the meantime I'll get all the necessary upstream PRs merged to publish the registry.k8s.io/e2e-test-images/regression-issue-74839:1.5 image.