Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0094 Student pods filled the shared nodes of a JupyterHub cluster and starved the hub's core pods, freezing the hub

   2i2c2020

   Symptoms

   At 08:52 PM IST a report came in from WER that many students could not access the JupyterHub and that it was frozen; pages were stuck and nothing was usable. A rise in activity was visible by 09:02 PM, but the usual fixes, such as opening an incognito window and restarting servers, did not help.

   Service outageSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   WER students' pods used a good chunk of their memory limit (tests had shown they almost always use just under 1G of their 2G limit, against a 512M guarantee) on nodes shared with the hub's core pods.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Node poolContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsUnverified assumptionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   WER reported stuck pages and students unable to reach the hub in a GitHub issue (2i2c-org/docs#27).

   Remediation

   • removed memory overcommit for the WER students
   • raised resource guarantees for all core pods, which restarted them and moved some to a new node

   Action items

   • Put user pods in a separate pool so they do not create pressure on the core pods (infrastructure#89)
   • Set limits on the support infrastructure (Prometheus, Grafana, ingress) as well (infrastructure#90)
   • Document and think about overcommit ratios for memory usage (infrastructure#91)
   • Set up better Grafana dashboards to monitor resource usage (infrastructure#92)
   • Document how people can get kubectl access to the cluster so others can look into issues too (infrastructure#87)

   Lessons

   Core pods without resource guarantees get whatever is left on a node, so when user pods on the same nodes fill the CPU and memory, the hub that serves everyone freezes. The memory overcommit ratio has to come from measured use: WER students used just under 1G against a 512M guarantee, which a 4x overcommit could not hold.

   View case
2. IL-0052 A cryptocurrency miner ran on every node of the development and staging clusters through a public, unauthenticated Weave Scope dashboard

   JW Player2019

   Symptoms

   Datadog alerted the DevOps team to a high normalised load average, first on the staging cluster (Day 0, 21:06 EST) and the next day on the development cluster (Day 1, 16:53 EST). The load was first put down to a legitimate service that kept scaling up and down in both environments, and because of the volume of identical alerts they were muted until things settled.

   Sustained high node CPUUnauthorised access or a foreign workload

   Trigger

   An automated crawler found the Weave Scope dashboard on a public load balancer that required no authentication. Weave Scope can open a shell in running containers, and its scope-agent containers ran privileged, as root and with the host's root filesystem mounted, so a command started there could run on the host.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Cluster dashboardCloud load balancer

   Contributing factor

   Ignored early signalUnreviewed defaultsExcessive blast radiusMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   Datadog alerts on high normalised load average, muted at first as noise from a legitimate service; on Day 3 an engineer ran top on a node and found the gcc process at 100% CPU.

   Remediation

   • stopped Weave Scope and removed its deployment from all Kubernetes clusters
   • checked access logs for unauthorised access to the instances
   • confirmed the miner's outbound connections went only to a mining pool
   • isolated one affected node for later investigation
   • rotated out every node in each cluster so all affected hosts were destroyed and rebuilt

   Action items

   • Audit all Kubernetes and deployment YAML files and security groups for services that are unintentionally public or misconfigured
   • Replace load-average alerts with more meaningful monitors and tune them to signal a real anomaly
   • Research tools such as falcon or sysdig for behavioural monitoring and anomaly and intrusion detection
   • Evaluate Istio and Linkerd for observing and controlling end-to-end network traffic
   • Analyse the cost of scanning Docker images and containers for known vulnerabilities
   • Set aside time in architecture discussions to revisit older choices such as running containers as root
   • Share knowledge of large projects, such as Kubernetes version migrations, across the whole team

   Lessons

   Load average was not a useful signal for spotting a problem in the clusters, and muted noisy alerts nearly hid the miner. A load balancer that Kubernetes creates belongs to Kubernetes: a manual security group edit in the AWS console is reverted, so internal exposure must be declared in the Kubernetes YAML. A dashboard that can open shells, in front of privileged agents that mount the host's root filesystem, gives whoever reaches it root on every node.

   View case

By root cause2