Automatic merge from submit-queue

Fix resttest Update action when AllowUnconditionalUpdate is false

Currently our storage Update test assumes that AllowUncoditionalUpdate returns true, and in testUpdateRejectsMismatchedNamespace updates the same object it's passing to create. This results in errors when trying to update that object, due to resourceVersion not being set to a proper value. This patch modifes this so that the update is executed on a stored object, which will have correct values set.

@deads2k ptal
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc fyi

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Fixed merging of host's and dns' search lines

Fixed forming of pod's Search line in resolv.conf:
 - exclude duplicates while merging of host's and dns' search lines to form pod's one
 - truncate pod's search line if it exceeds resolver limits: is > 255 chars and containes > 6 searches
 - monitoring the resolv.conf file which is used by kubelet (set thru --resolv-conf="") and logging and eventing if search line in it consists of more than 3 entries (or 6 if Cluster Domain is set) or its lenght is > 255 chars
 - logging and eventing when a pod's search line is > 255 chars or containes > 6 searches during forming

Fixes #29270

**Release note**:

```release-note
Fixed forming resolver search line for pods: exclude duplicates, obey libc limitations, logging and eventing appropriately.
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Prepare for using optimized conversion to/from map[string]interface{} in Patch operation

Ref #39017

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Add authorization mode to kubeadm

This PR adds an option in `kubeadm` to allow a user to specify an [authorization plugin](https://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/authorization/). It defaults to RBAC.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Move Federation e2e test code to independent package

**What this PR does / why we need it**: Move federation e2e test code to an independent package called e2e_federation. This will help in multiple ways.
- easy to move the federation related code to a separate repo from core.
- one step closer to register/unregister clusters to federation only once during e2e instead of every test case. we need to introduce singleton to register cluster during framework creation which will be handled in subsequent PR.

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes # 
Optimize federation e2e suite which takes long time to execute currently.

**Special notes for your reviewer**: I have tried to segregate into multiple commits. request to review commit by commit. also mostly the change is about moving the functions to a new location/package.

**Release note**:

```release-note
```

@madhusudancs @nikhiljindal @colhom

Automatic merge from submit-queue

turn on dynamic config for flaky tests

Added dynamic config to inode eviction node e2e tests in #39546, but did not enable it for flaky tests.  This PR enables this feature for the flaky test suite

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/cloudprovider

cc @runseb @justinsb @kerneltime @mikedanese @svanharmelen @anguslees @brendandburns @abrarshivani @imkin @luomiao @colemickens @ngtuna @dagnello @abithap

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Adding cos as an alias for gci.

**What this PR does / why we need it**: Adding COS as an alias for GCI.

cc: @adityakali @wonderfly

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: cmd/kubelet

cc @yujuhong @dchen1107 @vishh

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the future in
the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers**
section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40105, 40095)

Update dependencies: aws-sdk-go to 1.6.10; also cadvisor

updating cadvisor mainly to include [this bugfix #1558](https://github.com/google/cadvisor/pull/1558)

Because cadvisor vendors a newer version of aws than kubernetes, the aws dependency needed to be updated as well.
cc: @justinsb @zmerlynn @timstclair

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40105, 40095)

[OpenStack-Heat] Fix regex used to get object-store URL

**Release note**:

```release-note

Fixes a bug in the OpenStack-Heat kubernetes provider, in the handling of differences between the Identity v2 and Identity v3 APIs

```

make the sig-node-reviewers alias the reviewer for `cmd/kubelet/app`

add derekwaynecarr and Random-Liu as approvers and set the alias sig-node-reviewers as the reviewer

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39898, 39904)

[scheduler] interface for config

**What this PR fixes**

This PR converts the Scheduler configuration factory into an interface, so that
- the scheduler_perf and scheduler integration tests dont rely on the struct for their implementation
- the exported functionality of the factory (i.e. what it needs to provide to create a scheduler configuration) is completely explicit, rather then completely coupled to a struct.
- makes some parts of the factory immutable, again to minimize possible coupling.  

This makes it easier to make a custom factory in instances where we might specifically want to import scheduler logic without actually reusing the entire scheduler codebase.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Build release tars using bazel

**What this PR does / why we need it**: builds equivalents of the various kubernetes release tarballs, solely using bazel.

For example, you can now do
```console
$ make bazel-release
$ hack/e2e.go -v -up -test -down
```

**Special notes for your reviewer**: this is currently dependent on https://github.com/ixdy/bazel/commit/3b29803eb528ff525c7024190ffbf4b08c598cf2, which I have yet to turn into a pull request, since I'm still trying to figure out if this is the best approach.

Basically, the issue comes up with the way we generate the various server docker image tarfiles and load them on nodes:
* we `md5sum` the binary being encapsulated (e.g. kube-proxy) and save that to `$binary.docker_tag` in the server tarball
* we then build the docker image and tag using that md5sum (e.g. `gcr.io/google_containers/kube-proxy:$MD5SUM`)
* we `docker save` this image, which embeds the full tag in the `$binary.tar` file.
* on cluster startup, we `docker load` these tarballs, which are loaded with the tag that we'd created at build time. the nodes then use the `$binary.docker_tag` file to find the right image.

With the current bazel `docker_build` rule, the tag isn't saved in the docker image tar, so the node is unable to find the image after `docker load`ing it.

My changes to the rule save the tag in the docker image tar, though I don't know if there are subtle issues with it. (Maybe we want to only tag when `--stamp` is given?)

Also, the docker images produced by bazel have the timestamp set to the unix epoch, which is not great for debugging. Might be another thing to change with a `--stamp`.

Long story short, we probably need to follow up with bazel folks on the best way to solve this problem.

**Release note**:

```release-note
NONE
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36467, 36528, 39568, 40094, 39042)

do not filter kubectl get pods if -o json or yaml

Fixes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38327

This patch sets the value of --show-all to true if the output format
specified is 'json' or 'yaml'.

**Release note**:
```release-note
release-note-none
```

@smarterclayton

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36467, 36528, 39568, 40094, 39042)

Bump GCE to container-vm-v20170117

Base image update only, no kubelet or Docker updates.

```release-note
Update GCE ContainerVM deployment to container-vm-v20170117 to pick up CVE fixes in base image.
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36467, 36528, 39568, 40094, 39042)

Improve code coverage for algorithm/predicates.

Improve code coverage for algorithm/predicates for #39559 .

Improved coverage from 71.3% to 81.9%.

Coverage report: [combined-coverage.html.gz](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/files/691518/combined-coverage.html.gz)

"publicURL" is used for endpoints in the Identity v2 API, while in the
Identity v3 API it has been changed to just "public"

Fixes #40102

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/kubelet

cc @euank @vishh @dchen1107 @feiskyer @yujuhong @yifan-gu @derekwaynecarr @saad-ali

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: test/e2e_node

cc @random-liu @timstclair @vishh

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

update glibc to version pushed on 16-Jan-2017 19:12

Automatic merge from submit-queue

add node problem detector role

Adds a node problem detector role based on https://github.com/kubernetes/node-problem-detector/blob/master/pkg/problemclient/problem_client.go

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Use versioned Taint/Toleration/AvoidPods objects when marshalling

fixes #39847

`kubectl taint`, the kubelet's `--register-with-taints` option, and several Taint/Toleration/AllowPod annotation helpers were marshaling/unmarshaling using internal structs

Base image update only, no kubelet or Docker updates.