🐛 Measure nodeDeletionTimeout from node deletion start

[saisankargochhayat]

What this PR does / why we need it:
nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds is evaluated against the Machine's deletionTimestamp, so node drain, volume detach and infrastructure deletion all spend the same budget. Since nodeDrainTimeoutSeconds and nodeVolumeDetachTimeoutSeconds default to 0 (unlimited) and infrastructure deletion has no timeout, the budget is typically already exhausted by the time Node deletion is attempted — so raising nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds has no effect unless the value exceeds the time those phases consume.

This tracks nodeDeletionStartTime in status.deletion and measures the timeout from it, consistent with how nodeDrainTimeoutSeconds and nodeVolumeDetachTimeoutSeconds were changed in #11166.

Scope and behaviour change:

• This does change behaviour: when Node deletion fails, the Machine now retries for up to nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds measured from when Node deletion started, rather than giving up against a budget that was already spent.
• It does not change the default. nodeDeletionRetryTimeout (10s, not configurable) and the nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds default (10s) are equal, so a single poll window consumes the whole budget and the finalizer is still removed after the first failed window. The change takes effect once the configured budget exceeds the poll window — e.g. 30s gives three windows.
• Total Machine deletion time was already effectively unbounded, since drain and detach default to 0 and infra deletion has no timeout. deletionTimestamp + nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds was never a ceiling on deletion — it only truncated the final phase.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #14024

This PR was written in part with the assistance of generative AI.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: saisankargochhayat / name: Sai Sankar Gochhayat (a85b3f5)

[kubernetes-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign fabriziopandini for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[kubernetes-prow]

Welcome @saisankargochhayat!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[kubernetes-prow]

Hi @saisankargochhayat. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[saisankargochhayat]

/area machine

[troy0820]

Should we be adding this? Not sure but it seems like we would in effect be creating drift for an established api that already exists through several versions.

[saisankargochhayat]

I was taking some inspiration from #14024 111614024 6, finding a way to persist phase specific times.
We need a way to persist the timestamp for when Node deletion actually begins; otherwise nodeDeletionTimeoutSeconds includes time spent draining, waiting for hooks/volumes, and deleting infrastructure.
Any recommendations on how to persist this phase transition without extending MachineDeletionStatus?

[troy0820]

/hold

[troy0820]

Also, please abide by the AI usage policy https://kubernetes.io/blog/2026/06/26/open-source-maintainership-in-the-age-of-ai/