* kubeadm: Support for `.AuthorizationModes` in the kubeadm v1alpha2 API has been removed. Instead, you can use the `.APIServerExtraArgs` and `.APIServerExtraVolumes` fields to achieve the same effect. Files using the v1alpha1 API and setting this field will be automatically upgraded to this v1alpha2 API and the information will be preserved. ([#64068](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/64068), [@luxas](https://github.com/luxas))

  It will affect some metrics values related to the InterPodAffinity Score plugin. ([#117794](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/117794), [@utam0k](https://github.com/utam0k)) [SIG Scheduling]
- The scheduler skips the `PodTopologySpread` Filter plugin if no spread constraints.

- hyperkube: Use debian-hyperkube-base@v1.1.0 image
  
    A previous release built hyperkube using the debian-hyperkube-base@v1.0.0,
    which was updated to address a CVE in the CNI plugins.
    
    A side-effect of using this new image was that the networking packages
    (namely `iptables`) drifted from the versions used in the kube-proxy images.
  
    The following issues were filed on kube-proxy failures when using hyperkube:

        String retrievedPassword = authenticator.getPassword();
        assertEquals("charArrayPassword", retrievedPassword, "Password should match");

        // Modify original array - should not affect stored password
        passwordChars[0] = 'X';
        String retrievedPassword2 = authenticator.getPassword();

        // Given the current implementation, direct modification of the passed array affects the AvPair.
        // If this is not desired, a defensive copy should be added in the AvPair constructor.
        assertEquals(0x05, avPair.getRaw()[0],
                "Modifying original raw array should affect AvPair's raw data if no defensive copy is made.");
    }

            log.error("Failed to reset SingletonContext instance", e);
            fail("Failed to reset SingletonContext instance: " + e.getMessage());
        }
        // Clear system properties that might affect the test
        System.clearProperty("jcifs.properties");
        System.clearProperty("java.protocol.handler.pkgs");
        // Clear jcifs-specific properties to prevent test interference

        // Ensure arrays are independent: mutate clone's buffer via getter
        copy.get()[1] = 77;
        assertNotEquals(original.toString(), copy.toString(), "Mutating clone should not affect original");
    }

    // Uses reflection to set internal array to null to exercise defensive branch in length()
    @Test
    @DisplayName("length(): handles internal null defensively")

  /**
   * Creates a {@code CompactHashSet} instance, with a high enough "initial capacity" that it
   * <i>should</i> hold {@code expectedSize} elements without growth.
   *
   * @param expectedSize the number of elements you expect to add to the returned set
   * @return a new, empty {@code CompactHashSet} with enough capacity to hold {@code expectedSize}
   *     elements without resizing

import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableList;
import com.google.j2objc.annotations.J2ObjCIncompatible;
import java.io.File;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.nio.file.FileSystems;
import java.nio.file.Paths;
import java.nio.file.attribute.AclEntry;
import java.nio.file.attribute.AclEntryPermission;

configuration using e.g. the `mc admin config` commands you will need to adjust
your deployment.

Even though this change is backward compatible we do not expect that it affects
the vast majority of deployments in any negative way.

> Will an upgrade of an existing MinIO cluster impact the SLA of the cluster or will it even cause downtime?