Skip to content
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

Feature request - have vault_mount resource support audit_non_hmac_response_keys #667

Closed
kevinjlu opened this issue Feb 5, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@kevinjlu
Copy link

kevinjlu commented Feb 5, 2020

As defined in the vault API documentation, I would like to be able to specify the following fields on a vault_mount resource.

  • audit_non_hmac_request_keys (array: []) - Specifies the comma-separated list of keys that will not be HMAC'd by audit devices in the request data object.
  • audit_non_hmac_response_keys (array: []) - Specifies the comma-separated list of keys that will not be HMAC'd by audit devices in the response data object.

https://www.vaultproject.io/api-docs/system/mounts/#tune-mount-configuration

@thekev
Copy link

thekev commented Apr 15, 2020

I am also blocked by lack of full support of the API on the vault_mount resource. I am unable to work around it with vault_generic_endpoint, and the generic options parameter is not applicable. For comparison, vault_auth_backend implements all parameters. This resource should do the same.

Any workarounds?

@eliasscosta
Copy link

I'm looking for this feature as well.

@jiesiren
Copy link

Same here, would be great to get an update on this!

@thekev
Copy link

thekev commented Aug 30, 2021

It's been over 1.5 years since this was reported. I started to prepare a patch to add support, but other priorities have prevailed. Any other progress?

@benashz
Copy link
Contributor

benashz commented Jan 17, 2022

Closed by #1194

@benashz benashz closed this as completed Jan 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants