McAfee Secure

CNCF CKA Bundle

Exam Code: CKA

Exam Name Certified Kubernetes Administrator

Certification Provider: CNCF

Corresponding Certification: CKA

CNCF CKA Bundle $44.99
CKA Sample 1 CKA Sample 2 CKA Sample 3 CKA Sample 4 CKA Sample 5 CKA Sample 6 CKA Sample 7 CKA Sample 8 CKA Sample 9 CKA Sample 10

100% CNCF CKA Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real CKA Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    CKA Questions & Answers

    58 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual CKA exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • CKA Video Course

    CKA Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    CKA Video Course is developed by CNCF Professionals to help you pass the CKA exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Certified Kubernetes Administrator exam.
  • Study Guide

    CKA Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 268-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace CKA exam.

Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $194.97
Bundle Price: $149.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    58 Questions

    $124.99
  • CKA Video Course

    Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    $29.99

CNCF CKA Practice Test 26

Question 250

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: A prepared Kustomize overlay at ./overlays/uat changes the labels for the lab application dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. A namespaced Role expresses allowed resource verbs; it has no effect until a RoleBinding associates a subject.
  2. Nodes are cluster-scoped and their access rules belong in a ClusterRole rather than a namespaced Role.
  3. A RoleBinding associates the service account subject with a Role inside the binding namespace.
  4. Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl apply -k ./overlays/uat after inspecting the rendered output with kubectl kustomize ./overlays/uat. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: A namespaced Role expresses allowed resource verbs; it has no effect until a RoleBinding associates a subject. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation.

B:

This principle describes a separate cause: Nodes are cluster-scoped and their access rules belong in a ClusterRole rather than a namespaced Role. The reported condition is governed by: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

C:

A RoleBinding associates the service account subject with a Role inside the binding namespace. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation.

Question 251

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: A prepared Kustomize overlay at ./overlays/uat changes the labels for the lab application dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay.
  2. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get role dispatch-api-pod-reader -o yaml and confirm only Pod read verbs are present.
  3. Verify the snapshot command returns readable metadata and a documented file checksum.
  4. Run kubectl get node worker-c and verify SchedulingDisabled is shown.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. The intended action is: Run kubectl apply -k ./overlays/uat after inspecting the rendered output with kubectl kustomize ./overlays/uat.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The alternative verifies a different condition: A namespaced Role expresses allowed resource verbs; it has no effect until a RoleBinding associates a subject. The current case instead depends on: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. Confirm that “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay”.

C:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: The snapshot-status tool inspects backup metadata without modifying the running etcd member or performing a restore. In the current case, the governing reason is: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. The direct verification is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay”.

D:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: Cordon marks a Node unschedulable to new Pods but does not drain running workloads. The current issue is governed by: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get deployment dispatch-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay”.

Question 252

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: A prepared Kustomize overlay at ./overlays/uat changes the labels for the lab application dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Test restoration in an isolated environment and protect snapshot files as sensitive cluster state.
  2. Review rendered diffs and pin bases to reproducible revisions before applying overlays.
  3. Review workload identity ownership and avoid unnecessary credentials on the default service account.
  4. Track temporary maintenance taints in runbooks with explicit removal checkpoints.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Review rendered diffs and pin bases to reproducible revisions before applying overlays. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl apply -k ./overlays/uat after inspecting the rendered output with kubectl kustomize ./overlays/uat. The relevant mechanism is: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: A consistent etcd snapshot preserves control-plane state; an unauthenticated network copy is not a substitute. Here the sustained control must address: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. Choose “Review rendered diffs and pin bases to reproducible revisions before applying overlays”.

C:

This routine guards against another mechanism: ServiceAccounts provide workload identity; creating one does not automatically grant extra RBAC permissions. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. The matching preventive check is “Review rendered diffs and pin bases to reproducible revisions before applying overlays”.

D:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: A trailing minus removes the matching taint; adding a new toleration on every Pod would leave unnecessary cluster constraints. Here the sustained control must address: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. Choose “Review rendered diffs and pin bases to reproducible revisions before applying overlays”.

Question 253

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/invoice-api must be installed or upgraded as release invoice-api in namespace ledger with 3 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run helm rollback invoice-api 2 --namespace ledger after verifying release history and any irreversible data migrations.
  2. Run helm rollback dispatch-api 4 --namespace fulfillment after verifying release history and any irreversible data migrations.
  3. Run kubectl -n ledger rollout status deployment/sample-operator and kubectl get crd samples.example.test.
  4. Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Validate the result with: Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered action targets: Helm rollback submits resources from a prior release revision but cannot automatically undo external side effects or storage migrations. The case facts point instead to: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Implement “Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values” to address that specific condition.

B:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: Helm rollback submits resources from a prior release revision but cannot automatically undo external side effects or storage migrations. The reported case instead depends on: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The action that directly addresses it is “Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values”.

C:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: Custom resources are reconciled only when their schemas are registered and the operator controller is healthy. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The corrective choice is “Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values”.

Question 254

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/invoice-api must be installed or upgraded as release invoice-api in namespace ledger with 3 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.
  2. Cordon marks a Node unschedulable to new Pods but does not drain running workloads.
  3. Upgrade plan reports reachable upgrade targets and version skew considerations without applying a new control-plane version.
  4. The snapshot-status tool inspects backup metadata without modifying the running etcd member or performing a restore.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Cordon marks a Node unschedulable to new Pods but does not drain running workloads. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

C:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: Upgrade plan reports reachable upgrade targets and version skew considerations without applying a new control-plane version. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

D:

This principle describes a separate cause: The snapshot-status tool inspects backup metadata without modifying the running etcd member or performing a restore. The reported condition is governed by: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

Question 255

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/invoice-api must be installed or upgraded as release invoice-api in namespace ledger with 3 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run helm history dispatch-api -n fulfillment and helm status dispatch-api -n fulfillment then inspect resource rollout health.
  2. Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads.
  3. Run helm history metrics-api -n observability and helm status metrics-api -n observability then inspect resource rollout health.
  4. Run kubectl -n ledger get deployment invoice-api --show-labels and compare the live labels with the overlay.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The intended action is: Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The alternative verifies a different condition: Helm rollback submits resources from a prior release revision but cannot automatically undo external side effects or storage migrations. The current case instead depends on: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Confirm that “Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

C:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: Helm rollback submits resources from a prior release revision but cannot automatically undo external side effects or storage migrations. The current issue is governed by: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Its decisive check is “Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

D:

The alternative verifies a different condition: Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. The current case instead depends on: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Confirm that “Run helm status invoice-api -n ledger and kubectl -n ledger get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

Question 256

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/invoice-api must be installed or upgraded as release invoice-api in namespace ledger with 3 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Record node maintenance ownership and uncordon obligations before opening a window.
  2. Test restoration in an isolated environment and protect snapshot files as sensitive cluster state.
  3. Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records.
  4. Include schedulability restoration in maintenance completion checklists.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run helm upgrade --install invoice-api ./charts/invoice-api --namespace ledger --create-namespace --set replicaCount=3 after inspecting values. The relevant mechanism is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That safeguard is relevant to: Cordon marks a Node unschedulable to new Pods but does not drain running workloads. The current failure instead follows from: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Its prevention measure is “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.

B:

This routine guards against another mechanism: A consistent etcd snapshot preserves control-plane state; an unauthenticated network copy is not a substitute. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The matching preventive check is “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.

D:

That safeguard is relevant to: Uncordon clears the Node's unschedulable status; it does not guarantee any particular Pod will be placed there. The current failure instead follows from: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Its prevention measure is “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.

Question 257

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/metrics-api must be installed or upgraded as release metrics-api in namespace observability with 4 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values.
  2. Run kubectl create namespace observability and then kubectl label namespace observability owner=platform --overwrite.
  3. Run kubectl create clusterrolebinding metrics-api-node-audit --clusterrole=metrics-api-node-reader --group=platform-auditors.
  4. Run sudo kubeadm upgrade plan on the eligible control-plane host after checking package and version prerequisites.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Validate the result with: Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: A Namespace supplies a scope for namespaced resources while its metadata labels support policy and inventory selectors. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The corrective choice is “Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values”.

C:

The offered action targets: A ClusterRoleBinding applies its referenced ClusterRole permission set at cluster scope to the named group. The case facts point instead to: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Implement “Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values” to address that specific condition.

D:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: Upgrade plan reports reachable upgrade targets and version skew considerations without applying a new control-plane version. The reported case instead depends on: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The action that directly addresses it is “Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values”.

Question 258

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/metrics-api must be installed or upgraded as release metrics-api in namespace observability with 4 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation.
  2. Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.
  3. A RoleBinding associates the service account subject with a Role inside the binding namespace.
  4. The snapshot-status tool inspects backup metadata without modifying the running etcd member or performing a restore.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Kustomize renders declarative resource transformations before Kubernetes admission and reconciliation. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

C:

This principle describes a separate cause: A RoleBinding associates the service account subject with a Role inside the binding namespace. The reported condition is governed by: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

D:

The snapshot-status tool inspects backup metadata without modifying the running etcd member or performing a restore. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

Question 259

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/metrics-api must be installed or upgraded as release metrics-api in namespace observability with 4 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n observability describe resourcequota metrics-api-cpu and compare hard and used CPU requests.
  2. Run helm history invoice-api -n ledger and helm status invoice-api -n ledger then inspect resource rollout health.
  3. Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads.
  4. Run kubectl get clusterrole metrics-api-node-reader -o yaml and inspect resources and verbs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The intended action is: Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: A ResourceQuota caps combined admitted requests in a namespace; per-Pod limits alone do not enforce a namespace-wide budget. In the current case, the governing reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The direct verification is “Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

B:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: Helm rollback submits resources from a prior release revision but cannot automatically undo external side effects or storage migrations. The current issue is governed by: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Its decisive check is “Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

D:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: Nodes are cluster-scoped and their access rules belong in a ClusterRole rather than a namespaced Role. In the current case, the governing reason is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The direct verification is “Run helm status metrics-api -n observability and kubectl -n observability get deployments to verify the intended chart workloads”.

Question 260

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: A reviewed Helm chart at ./charts/metrics-api must be installed or upgraded as release metrics-api in namespace observability with 4 replicas. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Add explicit allowed-and-denied authorization tests after RBAC changes.
  2. Gate control-plane upgrades on tested backup, maintenance sequencing and rollback procedures.
  3. Record node maintenance ownership and uncordon obligations before opening a window.
  4. Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run helm upgrade --install metrics-api ./charts/metrics-api --namespace observability --create-namespace --set replicaCount=4 after inspecting values. The relevant mechanism is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This routine guards against another mechanism: RBAC authorization decisions depend on the subject, verb, resource and namespace; an admin's own access does not prove the workload identity's access. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. The matching preventive check is “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.

B:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: Kubeadm upgrade apply updates the managed control-plane configuration; kubelet packages and other nodes require separate coordinated work. Here the sustained control must address: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Choose “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.

C:

That safeguard is relevant to: Cordon marks a Node unschedulable to new Pods but does not drain running workloads. The current failure instead follows from: Helm maintains release revisions and renders templates; an install-or-upgrade path avoids treating an existing release as a new deployment. Its prevention measure is “Track chart provenance, values and release revisions with reviewed deployment change records”.