Merged
Conversation
03201e4 to
a968856
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/retest |
2cd72a6 to
a0bf11a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/retest |
a0bf11a to
194c41b
Compare
194c41b to
ff80111
Compare
ff80111 to
e3065d7
Compare
On-behalf-of: @SAP christoph.mewes@sap.com
e3065d7 to
16531c4
Compare
Contributor
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: f22d31d66d3455299b48cf3aab2cae27cdbc2011 |
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: embik The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
We want to provision RBAC rules for kubeconfigs (in #49). For that the idea is to connect to the kubeconfig's target (shard, rootshard or front-proxy) and create the Kube objects that way. This allows the operator to profit from the front-proxy's shard resolving capabilities (so that a Kubeconfig that targets a front-proxy can ask to provision RBAC in any workspace).
However the front-proxy will remove the system:masters group from the authInfo, so when we rely on it, we could not connect through a front-proxy to a shard and still be authorized to do anything.
To solve this, this PR introduces an internal front-proxy. This proxy is purposefully not configured to drop any groups and so will allow the operator to be admin everywhere it needs to be.
This new front-proxy is owned by the RootShard. Similar to the regular FrontProxies, it can be configured (e.g. tolerations and affinities), but on the RootShard object.
There is also a new kcp-operator client certificate that gives the operator
system:kcp:adminpermissions everywhere.To prevent too much code duplication, I turned the front-proxy code into a reconciler (a term we use waaaay too much). So now the controllers will not reconcile individual resources anymore, but they will instantiate the frontProxy reconciler and tell it to do its thing. There are still a lot of
if proxy else root shardblocks in the resulting code (something that would normally make me split the struct into two), but I saw no better way to deal with this.Originally we tried to solve this via #86, but found that this approach of "oh, u dropping
system:mastersbecause of security? well let us just addsystem:kcp-operatorand use that, ha, take that!" was trying to circumvent a security design decision of kcp.What Type of PR Is This?
/kind feature
Release Notes