Incidents/2022-08-10 confd all hosts

From Wikitech

document status: draft


Incident metadata (see Incident Scorecard)
Incident ID 2022-08-10 confd all hosts Start 2022-08-10 10:32:00
Task T313825 End 2022-08-10 13:31:00
People paged 0 Responder count 3
Coordinators Jaime Affected metrics/SLOs
Impact No external impact.

A Puppet patch (change 817307) was merged which would accidentally install confd on a significant number of production hosts. The Puppet provisioning for these confd installations failed half-way due to having no corresponding Icinga checks defined. This in turn fired an Icinga alert:

10:44 <icinga-wm> PROBLEM - Widespread puppet agent failures on alert1001 is CRITICAL: 0.1057 ge 0.01 

Engineers started work on reversing it, by cleaning up the inadvertent installs of confd via Cumin. Security posture was not compromised and there was no external user impact.



  • Git defaults to shows the author's date, not the commit date. Consider adding the following aliases to your git config as fix:
    • lola = log --graph --pretty=format:\"%C(auto)%h%d%Creset %C(cyan)(%cr)%Creset %C(green)%cn <%ce>%Creset %s\" --all
    • grephist = log --graph --pretty=format:\"%C(auto)%h%d%Creset %C(cyan)(%cr)%Creset %C(green)%cn <%ce>%Creset %s\" --all -S


Incident Engagement ScoreCard
Question Answer


People Were the people responding to this incident sufficiently different than the previous five incidents? yes Overlap of 3
Were the people who responded prepared enough to respond effectively yes
Were fewer than five people paged? yes
Were pages routed to the correct sub-team(s)? yes n/a
Were pages routed to online (business hours) engineers? Answer “no” if engineers were paged after business hours. yes n/a
Process Was the incident status section actively updated during the incident? yes
Was the public status page updated? no
Is there a phabricator task for the incident? no
Are the documented action items assigned? yes action items limited to improved local bash aliases
Is this incident sufficiently different from earlier incidents so as not to be a repeat occurrence? yes
Tooling To the best of your knowledge was the open task queue free of any tasks that would have prevented this incident? Answer “no” if there are

open tasks that would prevent this incident or make mitigation easier if implemented.

Were the people responding able to communicate effectively during the incident with the existing tooling? yes
Did existing monitoring notify the initial responders? yes
Were the engineering tools that were to be used during the incident, available and in service? yes
Were the steps taken to mitigate guided by an existing runbook? no
Total score (count of all “yes” answers above) 12