From e676c442e54e5ab5cdfa4a2b4c533b755c67fc27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:19:55 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] add volume mountpath env expansion

Signed-off-by: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
---
 .../README.md                                 | 693 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  39 +
 2 files changed, 732 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml

diff --git a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..9e6237f972b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,693 @@
+# KEP-478: Support volume mountPath replacing variable references with the values of given EnvVar
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
+    - [Story 1](#story-1)
+    - [Story 2](#story-2)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+      - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
+      - [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
+      - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
+      - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+The volume `mountPath`  expands the mountPath of the given `VolumeMount` by replacing variable references with the values of given EnvVar. [ExpandContainerVolumeMounts](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/49388) expands the subpath of the given EnvVar, but not support mountPath field.
+
+This KEP aims to for better performance and simplicity.
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!--
+This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of
+this KEP.  Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The
+motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports] to
+demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community.
+
+[experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports
+-->
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
+This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
+you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
+implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
+The "Design Details" section below is for the real
+nitty-gritty.
+-->
+
+### User Stories (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented.
+Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
+the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
+bogged down.
+-->
+
+#### Story 1
+
+I used a configMap to store the mount path value, but when i call in my pod it doesn't work it seems that the mountPath property can not be assigned to an env variable.
+
+```
+spec:
+  containers:
+  - env:
+    - name: POD_NAME
+      valueFrom:
+        fieldRef:
+          apiVersion: v1
+          fieldPath: metadata.name
+    - name: NAMESPACE
+      valueFrom:
+        fieldRef:
+          apiVersion: v1
+          fieldPath: metadata.namespace
+    - name: LOG_MOUNT_PATH
+      valueFrom:
+        configMapKeyRef:
+          name: my-configMap
+          key: LOG_MOUNT_PATH
+    image: myapp:latest
+    name: myapp
+    args:
+       - --log_file=$(LOG_MOUNT_PATH)/myapp.log
+    volumeMounts:
+    - mountPath: $(LOG_MOUNT_PATH)  #support mountPath env
+      name: datalog
+      subPathExpr: $(NAMESPACE)/$(POD_NAME)
+  volumes:
+  - hostPath:
+      path: /data/log
+      type: ""
+    name: datalog
+
+---
+apiVersion: v1
+kind: ConfigMap
+metadata:
+  name: my-configMap
+data:
+  LOG_MOUNT_PATH: "/opt/somepath"
+
+```
+
+#### Story 2
+
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
+
+<!--
+What are the caveats to the proposal?
+What are some important details that didn't come across above?
+Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
+This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
+-->
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+Kubernetes ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+
+[x] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
+existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
+to implement this enhancement.
+
+##### Prerequisite testing updates
+
+<!--
+Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
+implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
+-->
+
+##### Unit tests
+
+<!--
+In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
+the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
+However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
+together with explanation why this is acceptable.
+-->
+
+<!--
+Additionally, for Alpha try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
+to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
+in the form of:
+- <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
+The data can be easily read from:
+https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit
+
+This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
+extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
+-->
+
+- `pkg/kubelet/container: `<date>` - `<test coverage>`
+
+##### Integration tests
+
+<!--
+Integration tests are contained in k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration.
+Integration tests allow control of the configuration parameters used to start the binaries under test.
+This is different from e2e tests which do not allow configuration of parameters.
+Doing this allows testing non-default options and multiple different and potentially conflicting command line options.
+-->
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+-->
+
+- go test -coverprofile pkg/kubelet/container/helpers_test.go container
+
+##### e2e tests
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+
+We expect no non-infra related flakes in the last month as a GA graduation criteria.
+-->
+
+- test/e2e_node/summary_test.go
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind the feature gate `VolumeMountPathEnvExpansion`
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- `VolumeMountPathEnvExpansion` feature gate is enabled by default
+- Gather feedback and ensure no breaking changes
+
+#### GA
+
+- Feature gate removed
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
+-->
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
+components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and nodes?
+- How does an n-3 kubelet or kube-proxy without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- How does an n-1 kube-controller-manager or kube-scheduler without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
+  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+-->
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+
+Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
+well as the [existing list] of feature gates.
+
+[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
+-->
+
+- [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: `VolumeMountPathEnvExpansion`
+  - Components depending on the feature gate: `Kubelet`
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+<!--
+Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+automations, so be extremely careful here.
+-->
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Feature gates are typically disabled by setting the flag to `false` and
+restarting the component. No other changes should be necessary to disable the
+feature.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+There should be no problems
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+-   The existing summary subpath/subpathExpr test
+-   The nested expandable envs tests
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+`VolumeMountPathEnvExpansion` feature gate disabled.
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Events
+  - Event Reason: 
+- [ ] API .status
+  - Condition name: 
+  - Other field: 
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  - estimated throughput
+  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type
+  - Supported number of objects per cluster
+  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type(s):
+  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+
+###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?
+
+<!--
+Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
+(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
+If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
+(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?
+
+Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
+and validate the declared limits?
+-->
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
+- the date implementation started
+- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
+- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
+- when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..27acd4659a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+title: Support mountPath replacing variable references with the values of given EnvVar
+kep-number: 4788
+authors:
+  - "@dongjiang1989"
+owning-sig: sig-node
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-node
+  - sig-security
+status: provisional
+creation-date: 2024-09-01
+reviewers:
+  - TBD
+  - "@dongjiang1989"
+approvers:
+  - TBD
+  - "@dongjiang1989"
+
+see-also:
+  - "/keps/sig-node/4788-mountpath-replacing-env-variable"
+
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.32"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.32"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+  - name: VolumeMountPathEnvExpansion
+    components:
+      - kubelet
+disable-supported: true

From 21c3d1f546ba36ad9456a59b2cfcbd15b26c165f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:47:36 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] dongjiang, fix see-also

Signed-off-by: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
---
 keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml
index 27acd4659a8..a12ee1cff39 100644
--- a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/kep.yaml
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ approvers:
   - "@dongjiang1989"
 
 see-also:
-  - "/keps/sig-node/4788-mountpath-replacing-env-variable"
+  - "/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion"
 
 # The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
 stage: alpha

From 995e57941010f315141e7e38fc62bec04a4d393b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dongjiang <dongjiang1989@126.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:08:36 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] =?UTF-8?q?=E6=9B=B4=E6=96=B0=20README.md?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Co-authored-by: Itamar Holder <77444623+iholder101@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
index 9e6237f972b..594dd0d0575 100644
--- a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ bogged down.
 
 I used a configMap to store the mount path value, but when i call in my pod it doesn't work it seems that the mountPath property can not be assigned to an env variable.
 
-```
+```yaml
 spec:
   containers:
   - env:

From 67cb05b557d5128c0aa6b2ec9a9fa02928a85942 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 09:28:48 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] make update-toc

Signed-off-by: dongjiang1989 <dongjiang1989@126.com>
---
 keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
index 594dd0d0575..735f6d92b33 100644
--- a/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-node/4788-volume-mountpath-env-expansion/README.md
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
       - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
       - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
   - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+    - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
+    - [GA](#ga)
   - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
   - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
 - [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)