-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 584
Enable overriding service account issuer for bound tokens #569
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
openshift-merge-robot
merged 2 commits into
openshift:master
from
marun:bound-sa-tokens
Jan 22, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is there any special format? Is it a URL ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a default value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe
serviceAccountIssuer configures the issuer for bound service account tokenswould make more sense as an explanation for a common user?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's just a string. It can be configured with a URL to source the public key to verify issued tokens (as is the case for the EKS webhook), but it can also just be a textual value used by the verifier in kube-apiserver to identify that a token was issued by it.
As to the question of a default value, the operator will set
auth.openshift.ioin defaultconfig.yaml. Does that need to be documented here given that the API isn't the one defaulting it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Provide the recommended options in the godoc.
Yes, the behavior of the system and the repercussions of choices needs to be described here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
something like
[^:]*|someURLRegExThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wait, why don't I want to allow an empty string given that will be the default?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could. But then we have two ways to express that: empty and undefined. Kind of ugly.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A 'url regex' is a non-trivial thing (as per https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/url-regex). I get that it's desirable to validate up-front, but having to validate complex data declaratively like this seems error prone. Do you still want regex valiation, or would it make sense to instead do a url check in code when the field is observed and report an error in the operator logs or an event?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
am fine with later validation and reporting via e.g. a condition