Goglides Dev 🌱


Posted on • Originally published at kubernetes.io on

Container Runtime Interface streaming explained

The Kubernetes Container Runtime Interface (CRI)acts as the main connection between the kubeletand the Container Runtime. Those runtimes have to provide a gRPC server which has to fulfill a Kubernetes defined Protocol Buffer interface.This API definitionevolves over time, for example when contributors add new features or fields are going to become deprecated.

In this blog post, I'd like to dive into the functionality and history of three extraordinary Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs), which are truly outstanding in terms of how they work: Exec, Attach and PortForward.

Exec can be used to run dedicated commands within the container and stream the output to a client like kubectl orcrictl. It also allows interaction with that process using standard input (stdin), for example if users want to run a new shell instance within an existing workload.

Attach streams the output of the currently running process via standard I/Ofrom the container to the client and also allows interaction with them. This is particularly useful if users want to see what is going on in the container and be able to interact with the process.

PortForward can be utilized to forward a port from the host to the container to be able to interact with it using third party network tools. This allows it to bypass Kubernetes servicesfor a certain workload and interact with its network interface.

What is so special about them?

All RPCs of the CRI either use the gRPC unary callsfor communication or the server side streamingfeature (only GetContainerEvents right now). This means that mainly all RPCs retrieve a single client request and have to return a single server response. The same applies to Exec, Attach, and PortForward, where their protocol definitionlooks like this:

// Exec prepares a streaming endpoint to execute a command in the container.
rpc Exec(ExecRequest) returns (ExecResponse) {}

// Attach prepares a streaming endpoint to attach to a running container.
rpc Attach(AttachRequest) returns (AttachResponse) {}

// PortForward prepares a streaming endpoint to forward ports from a PodSandbox.
rpc PortForward(PortForwardRequest) returns (PortForwardResponse) {}

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The requests carry everything required to allow the server to do the work, for example, the ContainerId or command (Cmd) to be run in case of Exec. More interestingly, all of their responses only contain a url:

message ExecResponse {
 // Fully qualified URL of the exec streaming server.
 string url = 1;

message AttachResponse {
 // Fully qualified URL of the attach streaming server.
 string url = 1;

message PortForwardResponse {
 // Fully qualified URL of the port-forward streaming server.
 string url = 1;

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Why is it implemented like that? Well, the original design documentfor those RPCs even predates Kubernetes Enhancements Proposals (KEPs)and was originally outlined back in 2016. The kubelet had a native implementation for Exec, Attach, and PortForward before the initiative to bring the functionality to the CRI started. Before that, everything was bound to Docker or the later abandoned container runtime rkt.

The CRI related design document also elaborates on the option to use native RPC streaming for exec, attach, and port forward. The downsides outweighed this approach: the kubelet would still create a network bottleneck and future runtimes would not be free in choosing the server implementation details. Also, another option that the Kubelet implements a portable, runtime-agnostic solution has been abandoned over the final one, because this would mean another project to maintain which nevertheless would be runtime dependent.

This means, that the basic flow for Exec, Attach and PortForwardwas proposed to look like this:

sequenceDiagram participant crictl participant kubectl participant API as API Server participant kubelet participant runtime as Container Runtime participant streaming as Streaming Server alt Client alternatives Note over kubelet,runtime: Container Runtime Interface (CRI) kubectl->>API: exec, attach, port-forward API->>kubelet: kubelet->>runtime: Exec, Attach, PortForward else Note over crictl,runtime: Container Runtime Interface (CRI) crictl->>runtime: Exec, Attach, PortForward end runtime->>streaming: New Session streaming->>runtime: HTTP endpoint (URL) alt Client alternatives runtime->>kubelet: Response URL kubelet->>API: API-->>streaming: Connection upgrade (SPDY or WebSocket) streaming-)API: Stream data API-)kubectl: Stream data else runtime->>crictl: Response URL crictl-->>streaming: Connection upgrade (SPDY or WebSocket) streaming-)crictl: Stream data end

JavaScript must be enabled to view this content

Clients like crictl or the kubelet (via kubectl) request a new exec, attach or port forward session from the runtime using the gRPC interface. The runtime implements a streaming server that also manages the active sessions. This streaming server provides an HTTP endpoint for the client to connect to. The client upgrades the connection to use the SPDYstreaming protocol or (in the future) to a WebSocketconnection and starts to stream the data back and forth.

This implementation allows runtimes to have the flexibility to implementExec, Attach and PortForward the way they want, and also allows a simple test path. Runtimes can change the underlying implementation to support any kind of feature without having a need to modify the CRI at all.

Many smaller enhancements to this overall approach have been merged into Kubernetes in the past years, but the general pattern has always stayed the same. The kubelet source code transformed into a reusable library, which is nowadays usable from container runtimes to implement the basic streaming capability.

How does the streaming actually work?

At a first glance, it looks like all three RPCs work the same way, but that's not the case. It's possible to group the functionality of Exec and Attach , while PortForward follows a distinct internal protocol definition.

Exec and Attach

Kubernetes defines Exec and Attach as remote commands, where its protocol definition exists in five different versions:

# Version Note
1 channel.k8s.io Initial (unversioned) SPDY sub protocol (#13394, #13395)
2 v2.channel.k8s.io Resolves the issues present in the first version (#15961)
3 v3.channel.k8s.io Adds support for resizing container terminals (#25273)
4 v4.channel.k8s.io Adds support for exit codes using JSON errors (#26541)
5 v5.channel.k8s.io Adds support for a CLOSE signal (#119157)

On top of that, there is an overall effort to replace the SPDY transport protocol using WebSockets as part KEP #4006. Runtimes have to satisfy those protocols over their life cycle to stay up to date with the Kubernetes implementation.

Let's assume that a client uses the latest (v5) version of the protocol as well as communicating over WebSockets. In that case, the general flow would be:

  1. The client requests an URL endpoint for Exec or Attach using the CRI.

  2. The client connects to that URL, upgrades the connection to establish a WebSocket, and starts to stream data.

Interpreting data for the defined protocol is fairly simple: The first byte of every input and output packet definesthe actual stream:

First Byte Type Description
0 standard input Data streamed from stdin
1 standard output Data streamed to stdout
2 standard error Data streamed to stderr
3 stream error A streaming error occurred
4 stream resize A terminal resize event
255 stream close Stream should be closed (for WebSockets)

How should runtimes now implement the streaming server methods for Exec and Attach by using the provided kubelet library? The key is that the streaming server implementation in the kubelet outlines an interfacecalled Runtime which has to be fulfilled by the actual container runtime if it wants to use that library:

// Runtime is the interface to execute the commands and provide the streams.
type Runtime interface {
 Exec(ctx context.Context, containerID string, cmd []string, in io.Reader, out, err io.WriteCloser, tty bool, resize <-chan remotecommand.TerminalSize) error
 Attach(ctx context.Context, containerID string, in io.Reader, out, err io.WriteCloser, tty bool, resize <-chan remotecommand.TerminalSize) error
 PortForward(ctx context.Context, podSandboxID string, port int32, stream io.ReadWriteCloser) error

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Everything related to the protocol interpretation is already in place and runtimes only have to implement the actual Exec andAttach logic. For example, the container runtime CRI-Odoes it like this pseudo code:

func (s StreamService) Exec(
 ctx context.Context,
 containerID string,
 cmd []string,
 stdin io.Reader, stdout, stderr io.WriteCloser,
 tty bool,
 resizeChan <-chan remotecommand.TerminalSize,
) error {
 // Retrieve the container by the provided containerID
 // …

 // Update the container status and verify that the workload is running
 // …

 // Execute the command and stream the data
 return s.runtimeServer.Runtime().ExecContainer(
 s.ctx, c, cmd, stdin, stdout, stderr, tty, resizeChan,

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode


Forwarding ports to a container works a bit differently when comparing it to streaming IO data from a workload. The server still has to provide a URL endpoint for the client to connect to, but then the container runtime has to enter the network namespace of the container, allocate the port as well as stream the data back and forth. There is no simple protocol definition available like for Exec or Attach. This means that the client will stream the plain SPDY frames (with or without an additional WebSocket connection) which can be interpreted using libraries like moby/spdystream.

Luckily, the kubelet library already provides the PortForward interface method which has to be implemented by the runtime. CRI-O does that by (simplified):

func (s StreamService) PortForward(
 ctx context.Context,
 podSandboxID string,
 port int32,
 stream io.ReadWriteCloser,
) error {
 // Retrieve the pod sandbox by the provided podSandboxID
 sandboxID, err := s.runtimeServer.PodIDIndex().Get(podSandboxID)
 sb := s.runtimeServer.GetSandbox(sandboxID)
 // …

 // Get the network namespace path on disk for that sandbox
 netNsPath := sb.NetNsPath()
 // …

 // Enter the network namespace and stream the data
 return s.runtimeServer.Runtime().PortForwardContainer(
 ctx, sb.InfraContainer(), netNsPath, port, stream,

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Future work

The flexibility Kubernetes provides for the RPCs Exec, Attach andPortForward is truly outstanding compared to other methods. Nevertheless, container runtimes have to keep up with the latest and greatest implementations to support those features in a meaningful way. The general effort to support WebSockets is not only a plain Kubernetes thing, it also has to be supported by container runtimes as well as clients like crictl.

For example, crictl v1.30 features a new --transport flag for the subcommands exec, attach and port-forward(#1383,#1385) to allow choosing between websocket and spdy.

CRI-O is going an experimental path by moving the streaming server implementation into conmon-rs(a substitute for the container monitor conmon). conmon-rs is a Rust implementation of the original container monitor and allows streaming WebSockets directly using supported libraries (#2070). The major benefit of this approach is that CRI-O does not even have to be running while conmon-rs can keep active Exec , Attach and PortForward sessions open. The simplified flow when using crictl directly will then look like this:

sequenceDiagram autonumber participant crictl participant runtime as Container Runtime participant conmon-rs Note over crictl,runtime: Container Runtime Interface (CRI) crictl->>runtime: Exec, Attach, PortForward Note over runtime,conmon-rs: Cap’n Proto runtime->>conmon-rs: Serve Exec, Attach, PortForward conmon-rs->>runtime: HTTP endpoint (URL) runtime->>crictl: Response URL crictl-->>conmon-rs: Connection upgrade to WebSocket conmon-rs-)crictl: Stream data

JavaScript must be enabled to view this content

All of those enhancements require iterative design decisions, while the original well-conceived implementation acts as the foundation for those. I really hope you've enjoyed this compact journey through the history of CRI RPCs. Feel free to reach out to me anytime for suggestions or feedback using theofficial Kubernetes Slack.

Top comments (0)