NO-JIRA: UPSTREAM: Add several request/response headers in audit log entries

[vrutkovs]

Store several request/response headers in audit log:

• Accept header from request in openshift.io/request-header-accept annotation
• Accept-Encoding header from request in openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding annotation
• Content-Type header from response in openshift.io/response-header-content-type annotation
• Content-Encoding header from response in openshift.io/response-header-content-encoding annotation\

These would be helpful to figure out request/response encodings (json, protobuf, raw table). This would be useful for finding inefficient clients using JSON instead of protobuf - and later on for CBOR enhancement.

openshift.io/request-header-content-length annotation would be helpful to find large responses - which may mean the client is requesting too much data etc. This annotation takes value from Content-Length header, if its unset it calculates the size of the response manually

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci-robot]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 14b05bd|Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 3cc01e2|Store "openshift.io/request-header-host" annotation in audit logs: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 71fd64a|audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• ac75c81|HACK: fix request Host storing in openshift.io/during-graceful audit log annotation: 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.

[vrutkovs]

/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs openshift/origin#29222 periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: it appears that you have attempted to use some version of the payload command, but your comment was incorrectly formatted and cannot be acted upon. See the docs for usage info.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial openshift/origin#29222

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: it appears that you have attempted to use some version of the payload command, but your comment was incorrectly formatted and cannot be acted upon. See the docs for usage info.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/29222,openshift/kubernetes#2121,openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: it appears that you have attempted to use some version of the payload command, but your comment was incorrectly formatted and cannot be acted upon. See the docs for usage info.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial openshift/origin/pull/29222 #2121 openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: An error was encountered. No known errors were detected, please see the full error message for details.

Full error message.

unable to get additional pr info from string: openshift/origin/pull/29222: string: openshift/origin/pull/29222 doesn't match expected format: org/repo#number

Please contact an administrator to resolve this issue.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial https://github.com/openshift/origin#29222 #2121 openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: it appears that you have attempted to use some version of the payload command, but your comment was incorrectly formatted and cannot be acted upon. See the docs for usage info.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial openshift/origin#29222 #2121 openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

• periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/8ead4490-9117-11ef-8662-fdd14cd693cb-0

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: This PR was included in a payload test run from #2121
trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

• periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/8ead4490-9117-11ef-8662-fdd14cd693cb-0

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial https://github.com/openshift/origin#29222 https://github.com/openshift/kubernetes#2121 https://github.com/openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505 cluster-csi-snapshot-controller-operator#217 machine-config-operator#4658

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: it appears that you have attempted to use some version of the payload command, but your comment was incorrectly formatted and cannot be acted upon. See the docs for usage info.

[vrutkovs]

/payload-job-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial openshift/origin#29222 #2121 openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2505 openshift/cluster-csi-snapshot-controller-operator#217 openshift/machine-config-operator#4658

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

• periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/17dde510-911a-11ef-90f7-2ad72545de28-0

[openshift-ci]

@vrutkovs: This PR was included in a payload test run from #2121
trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

• periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.18-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/17dde510-911a-11ef-90f7-2ad72545de28-0

[openshift-ci-robot]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 14b05bd|Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 3cc01e2|Store "openshift.io/request-header-host" annotation in audit logs: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• ac75c81|HACK: fix request Host storing in openshift.io/during-graceful audit log annotation: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• d980cca|audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: 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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 105a914|Store "openshift.io/request-header-host" annotation in audit logs: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 65047e7|HACK: fix request Host storing in openshift.io/during-graceful audit log annotation: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• d0baa18|Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• d829301|audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: 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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• be8ee97|audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• ea602dc|Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": 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]

@vrutkovs: This pull request explicitly references no jira issue.

In response to this:

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 63a72e6|UPSTREAM: : Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 92ada27|UPSTREAM: : audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: 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]

@vrutkovs: This pull request explicitly references no jira issue.

In response to this:

Store several request/response headers in audit log:

• Accept header from request in openshift.io/request-header-accept annotation
• Accept-Encoding header from request in openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding annotation
• Content-Type header from response in openshift.io/response-header-content-type annotation
• Content-Encoding header from response in openshift.io/response-header-content-encoding annotation\

These would be helpful to figure out request/response encodings (json, protobuf, raw table). This would be useful for finding inefficient clients using JSON instead of protobuf - and later on for CBOR enhancement.

openshift.io/request-header-content-length annotation would be helpful to find large responses - which may mean the client is requesting too much data 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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 63a72e6|UPSTREAM: : Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 79ec370|UPSTREAM: : audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: 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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 2e397f5|UPSTREAM: : audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 63a72e6|UPSTREAM: : Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": 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]

@vrutkovs: 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:

• 63a72e6|UPSTREAM: : Store "openshift.io/request-header-accept", "openshift.io/request-header-accept-encoding" and "openshift.io/request-header-content-length": does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• b2bf089|UPSTREAM: : audit: store accept/accept-encoding/content-length audit log annotations: 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]

@vrutkovs: 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-serial	b2bf089	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial
ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-ovn-cmd	b2bf089	link	false	/test e2e-agnostic-ovn-cmd
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-hypershift	b2bf089	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn-hypershift

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

[Elbehery]

/lgtm
/approve

[Elbehery]

/label acknowledge-critical-fixes-only

[openshift-ci]

@Elbehery: The label(s) /label acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, approved, backport-risk-assessed, backports/unvalidated-commits, backports/validated-commits, bugzilla/invalid-bug, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, jira/invalid-bug, jira/valid-bug, jira/valid-reference, staff-eng-approved. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label acknowledge-critical-fixes-only,

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.

[Elbehery]

/label acknowledge-critical-fixes-only

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Elbehery, vrutkovs
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign p0lyn0mial for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

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