Automatic merge from submit-queue

Update to latest go-restful

Enables us to remap the variable names swagger uses in output so we can avoid duplicates across type names.

Part of #38071

@mbohlool

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38315, 38624, 38572, 38544)

Fix code coverage in build script on OS X.

Fixes #20223

- Fixes code coverage in build script on BSD systems (including OS X).
- Supersedes #38536.

Successfully tested on two platforms:

```
Darwin <hostname> 16.1.0 Darwin Kernel Version 16.1.0: Thu Oct 13 21:26:57 PDT 2016; root:xnu-3789.21.3~60/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
```

```
Linux <hostname> 4.4.14-040414-generic #201606241434 SMP Fri Jun 24 18:36:45 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
```

cc @ixdy @mfanjie @balajismaniam @smarterclayton @soltysh

**Release note**:
```release-note
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38315, 38624, 38572, 38544)

scheduler: refactor main entry Run()

The kube-scheduler/app.Run() is the main entry of scheduler program.
It's enormous.
This PR tries to clean it up. Should be more modular and readable.

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38315, 38624, 38572, 38544)

kubernetes-discovery proxy

The last commit adds an authenticating (but not authorizing) proxy to `kubernetes-discovery`.  The other commits are in the submit queue already.

@sttts @cjcullen This is it.  After this we can start e2e wiring.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Pin gazel to a version and support cgo

This fixes the bazel build.

@krousey who is buildcop

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/controller

cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @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
perfectly: 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.
## 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 add
   the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
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

Bad conditional in vSphereLogin function

```release-note
Fixes NotAuthenticated errors that appear in the kubelet and kube-controller-manager due to never logging in to vSphere
```

With this conditional being == instead of !=, a login would never actually be attempted by this provider, and disk attachments would fail with a NotAuthenticated error from vSphere.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: cmd/kubeadm

cc @jbeda @mikedanese @luxas @errordeveloper

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

CRI: fix ImageStatus comment

**What this PR does / why we need it**:

GRPC cannot encode `nil` (CRI-O itself panic while trying to encode `nil` for `ImageStatus`). This PR fixes `ImageStatus` comment to say that when the image does not exist the call returns a response having `Image` set to `nil` (instead of saying implementors should return `nil` directly).

/cc @mrunalp @vishh @feiskyer 

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #

**Special notes for your reviewer**:

**Release note**:

```release-note
```
Signed-off-by: Antonio Murdaca <runcom@redhat.com>

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: cluster/vagrant

cc @derekwaynecarr

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

cluster/aws: Clean up dhcp-options

**What this PR does / why we need it**: After adding the aws janitor, the thing we're consistently sweeping is the DhcpOptionSets created by cluster/aws/util.sh (and there were thousands on the first run). Fix it!

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*:
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
Fix an issue where AWS tear-down leaks an DHCP Option Set.
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Bump default kubernetes version when no internet is present to v1.5

@mikedanese Please lgtm as soon as possible
It's a noop, when no internet is present so the latest version can't be determined, this version is used.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/admission/

cc @lavalamp @davidopp @erictune @liggitt @derekwaynecarr

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.

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. Use the following commit as a suggestion: 7f6469fc

3. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
add the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in
the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers**
section.

4. 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.

5. 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)

fix network-tester cauldron serve_hostnames

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Leak filling for newline format on benchmark-go.sh

**What this PR does / why we need it**:  make hack/benchmark-go.sh work 

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #

**Special notes for your reviewer**: First commit :D , did I make a wrong modification? 

**Release note**:

```release-note
```

After adding the aws janitor, the thing we're consistently sweeping is
the DhcpOptionSets created by cluster/aws/util.sh (and there were
thousands on the first run). Fix it!

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Interrupt/Terminate all child processes on timeout. Auto-gen stepName

Signal all children of the finishRunning command. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22470193/why-wont-go-kill-a-child-process-correctly

Most commands started by e2e.go are shell scripts like `hack/ginkgo-e2e.sh`, `hack/e2e-internal/e2e-down.sh`, etc which quickly starts a subprocess such as the ginkgo binary. We spend ~1s in ginkgo-e2e.sh and hours inside the ginkgo binary. Therefore when we want to timeout it is important that we signal the child processes as well, which we can accomplish by starting the command in a new process group, and signaling `-pid` instead of `pid`

Ref https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/1316 https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/1250
Test results: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/37868

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Revert to version 70b2c90b of the vendored package github.com/Azure/go-ansiterm

Fixes the problem described in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/37783#issuecomment-266245476

Fixes #38073

@ixdy @gmarek @colemickens @brendandburns

Automatic merge from submit-queue

goflags must be after subcommand

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
if GOFLAGS is set when calling make, kubernetes will fail to build

as an example, I often have `GOFLAGS=-v` so I can have some idea of progress during compilation

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: 
no known issue

**Special notes for your reviewer**:

**Release note**:

```release-note
NONE
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38419, 38457, 38607)

Node E2E: Update CVM version to e2e-node-containervm-v20161208-image.

I built the new node e2e image from e2e-node-containervm-v20161208-image.

@timstclair 
/cc @kubernetes/sig-node

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38419, 38457, 38607)

Fix pod level QoS does not works on CRI dockershim

Fixes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38458

We did set `CgroupParent ` in `CreateContainer`, but the `HostConfig.Resources` which `CgroupParent` belongs to is override by the following code:

```
hc.CgroupParent = lc.GetCgroupParent()

...

hc.Resources = dockercontainer.Resources{
	Memory:     rOpts.GetMemoryLimitInBytes(),
...
}
```

That's why `HostConfig.CgroupParent` is always empty and pod level QoS does not work.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

bump log level on service status update

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38349

I tried to reproduce the problem in #38349 and failed. Not sure why service status update failed and service controller skip status update in the next round. What I have observed is that if service status update failed due to conflict, the next round of processServiceUpdate will correct it. 

Bumping log level to get a better signal when it occurs.

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)

Fix threshold notifier build tags

Fix threshold notifier build tags so the linux version is only built if cgo is
enabled, and the unsupported version is built if it's either not linux or not
cgo.

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)

Make kubectl top pod test table-driven

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)

Fix staging/copy.sh to work on mac and linux

@smarterclayton ptal

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)

Warn user if they try to apply on an object without the annotation

Give user a warning when using `kubectl apply` on a resource lacking the `LastAppliedConfig` annotation

fixes #36620

Ref: #35134 and #36509.

**Release note**:
```release-note
Issue a warning when using `kubectl apply` on a resource lacking the `LastAppliedConfig` annotation
```