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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets #6850

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 7, 2023
Merged

Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets #6850

merged 3 commits into from
Feb 7, 2023

Conversation

dereknola
Copy link
Member

@dereknola dereknola commented Jan 30, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Signed-off-by: Derek Nola [email protected]

Proposed Changes

  • Ignore conflicts when reencyrpting secrets. This means that the secrets has already been modified, and thus has been reencrypted with the new key outside of the dedicated reencryption process.

Types of Changes

Secrets Encryption Bugfix

Verification

  • Deploy 1K secrets and go thru the standard secrets encryption process. See Secrets reencryption fails on 8K+ secrets #5933
  • While reencryption is running, pick a "high number" secret and modify its value.
  • Reencryption should complete without complaint

Linked Issues

#6824

User-Facing Change

Further Comments

@dereknola dereknola requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2023 18:34
@dereknola
retry secret update
5f5c0e7 
Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
@brandond brandond self-requested a review January 31, 2023 22:02
@dereknola
Ignore conflict secrets
38ec984 
Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
@dereknola dereknola changed the title Add a retry to secrets encryption update Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets Feb 1, 2023
@dereknola
Copy link
Member Author

@brandond your logic makes sense. I have changed the approach to this PR.

brandond
brandond approved these changes Feb 1, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@brandond brandond left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, but maybe also fix the weird grammar on the error while we're here?

@dereknola
Spelling fix
e20a5bb 
Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
VestigeJ
VestigeJ approved these changes Feb 7, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@VestigeJ VestigeJ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@dereknola dereknola merged commit 7d49202 into k3s-io:master Feb 7, 2023
dereknola added a commit to dereknola/k3s that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2023
@dereknola
Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets (k3s-io#6850)
eadde54 
* Ignore conflict secrets

Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
dereknola added a commit to dereknola/k3s that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2023
@dereknola
Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets (k3s-io#6850)
75c88e2 
* Ignore conflict secrets

Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
dereknola added a commit to dereknola/k3s that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2023
@dereknola
Ignore value conflicts when reencrypting secrets (k3s-io#6850)
8f77728 
* Ignore conflict secrets

Signed-off-by: Derek Nola <[email protected]>
This was referenced Feb 7, 2023
Merged
Merged
Merged
@dereknola dereknola deleted the secrets_retry branch February 8, 2023 23:45
@cguertin14 cguertin14 mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@VestigeJ VestigeJ VestigeJ approved these changes

@brandond brandond brandond approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@dereknola @brandond @VestigeJ