-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[installer]: fix incorrectly configured pod security policies #7106
Conversation
294124f
to
cd1b30a
Compare
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ const ( | |||
RegistryAuthSecret = "builtin-registry-auth" | |||
RegistryTLSCertSecret = "builtin-registry-certs" | |||
RegistryFacadeComponent = "registry-facade" | |||
RegistryFacadeServicePort = 3000 | |||
RegistryFacadeServicePort = 30000 |
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.
Changed value as registry-facade/podsecuritypolicy.go set to 30000-33000
. It seems that this is post-processed in SaaS/Core Dev to be in that range
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.
Yes, that is done with Helm now like so.
This now makes Gitpod work in a cluster with pod security policies enabled.
cd1b30a
to
8d34bd9
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7106 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 30.52% 5.76% -24.76%
==========================================
Files 34 13 -21
Lines 5917 1162 -4755
==========================================
- Hits 1806 67 -1739
+ Misses 3974 1094 -2880
+ Partials 137 1 -136
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ var Helm = common.CompositeHelmFunc( | |||
helm.KeyValue("rabbitmq.auth.password", password), | |||
helm.KeyValue("rabbitmq.auth.existingErlangSecret", CookieSecret), | |||
helm.KeyValue("rabbitmq.auth.tls.existingSecret", TLSSecret), | |||
helm.KeyValue("rabbitmq.serviceAccount.name", Component), |
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.
I like this, this is much better than changing the component!
/approve |
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.
Have not tested, but change LGTM
Please feel free to ignore this comment; I assume you already considerd that.
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 1ddb68ae75214623e26b1c34775485aee0c717e5
|
LGTM |
It's always worthwhile checking I've not done something daft. Thanks |
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ const ( | |||
RegistryAuthSecret = "builtin-registry-auth" | |||
RegistryTLSCertSecret = "builtin-registry-certs" | |||
RegistryFacadeComponent = "registry-facade" | |||
RegistryFacadeServicePort = 3000 | |||
RegistryFacadeServicePort = 30000 |
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.
that value could produce some collision (default initial value for node ports)
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.
Yes it could. @kylos101 has done some post-processing for Core Dev on daemonsets to avoid collisions as part of his Werft job. Is that the collision you're talking about?
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.
The range core-dev uses for registry-facade is 30000-31000. @aledbf is that the potential collision you were referring? If yes, I think we'll be okay, because this is referring registry-facade.
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.
Yes. Are we doing the same post-processing on user clusters?
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.
No we're not. The general principle that we're working on is one deployment of Gitpod per cluster. It's not explicitly noted at the moment, but it's one that will be documented when we do the public introductory docs
/hold |
/lgtm |
/werft run 👍 started the job as gitpod-build-sje-installer-psps.5 |
/unhold |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: geropl, kylos101, MrSimonEmms Associated issue: #7107 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Description
This now makes Gitpod work in a cluster with pod security policies enabled. Seems there was some missed configurations.
This does not include the work for InCluster Docker registry, see #7107
Related Issue(s)
Fixes #7095
How to test
Deploy to a cluster with Pod Security Policies enabled. Have tested with all combinations of incluster and external dependencies
Release Notes
Documentation